Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Facing Demn Revolt Over Trade Deals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama Facing Demn Revolt Over Trade Deals

    President Obama is facing a Democratic revolt over ambitious trade initiatives that are dividing the party, leading to tensions with everyone from Senate party leader Harry Reid to liberal icon Elizabeth Warren.
    In a blunt challenge to the president, Reid even told reporters this week: "I'm not only no, I'm hell no" on Obama's proposal.


    At issue is a push for legislation that would ease the way for sweeping trade deals. Obama wants fast-track powers to help move free-trade proposals such as the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.


    But that authority, and those proposals, face resistance from labor unions and liberal groups who say free-trade pacts hurts U.S. jobs. Hillary Clinton, too, has been left in an awkward position as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president, and is publicly holding back support amid pressure from the left.


    The push-back now has Obama on defense, as he tries to muster a bipartisan coalition.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...-says-hell-no/
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

  • #2
    Obama muster a bipartisan move?
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      Obama muster a bipartisan move?
      Sounds more like he's going to have to use bipartisan level politics just to muster a move from his own party.

      I will give the Democrats a teensy bit of credit. They've come a long way since Obamacare. They have learned how just voting straight ticket based on what some 'celebrity' in their party wants can bite them in the ass.
      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
        Sounds more like he's going to have to use bipartisan level politics just to muster a move from his own party.

        I will give the Democrats a teensy bit of credit. They've come a long way since Obamacare. They have learned how just voting straight ticket based on what some 'celebrity' in their party wants can bite them in the ass.
        No joke. And the GOP will want Bobo to jump through some specific hoops before they help him.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
          Sounds more like he's going to have to use bipartisan level politics just to muster a move from his own party.

          I will give the Democrats a teensy bit of credit. They've come a long way since Obamacare. They have learned how just voting straight ticket based on what some 'celebrity' in their party wants can bite them in the ass.
          What a pity they didn't learn that lesson sooner. Must be elections coming up soon for the Dems, or I doubt they would be so interested.

          Self-interest rather than national interest powers politics almost entirely.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't worry, they'll forget in a year or two.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              The TPP trade deal would be dead if it doesn't get fast track authority. No other country would want to negotiate a trade deal that Congress could pick apart after it's negotiated, it has to be an all or nothing deal.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                The TPP trade deal would be dead if it doesn't get fast track authority. No other country would want to negotiate a trade deal that Congress could pick apart after it's negotiated, it has to be an all or nothing deal.
                Well, it's only chance to continue to live is Bobo's willingness to kiss some GOP butt.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We give the president fast track authority to self ratify a treaty and we might as well declare him king.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    We give the president fast track authority to self ratify a treaty and we might as well declare him king.
                    The senate still votes on the treaty regardless, it's just not able to be amended.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      And that places pressure on the Senate to ratify. And do so as is. Still looks like giving up sovereignty to foreign powers.

                      What would the other countries do if the Senate simply refused to ratify any treaty that they had no power to amend?

                      Also. ....if the nature of the treaty is such that you're scared the Senate will want to amend it, and you don't want them to be able to, then I question if the treaty is in the interests of the United States in the first place. Obama would sell the us out for a Klondike bar. And then give you the Klondike bar back. If you don't want the Senate to edit the treaty. ......negotiate something palatable to them. Don't demand that they relinquish the power to make changes to what they agree to abide by.
                      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                        And that places pressure on the Senate to ratify. And do so as is. Still looks like giving up sovereignty to foreign powers.

                        What would the other countries do if the Senate simply refused to ratify any treaty that they had no power to amend?

                        Also. ....if the nature of the treaty is such that you're scared the Senate will want to amend it, and you don't want them to be able to, then I question if the treaty is in the interests of the United States in the first place. Obama would sell the us out for a Klondike bar. And then give you the Klondike bar back. If you don't want the Senate to edit the treaty. ......negotiate something palatable to them. Don't demand that they relinquish the power to make changes to what they agree to abide by.
                        The Senate has refused to ratify a number of treaties in the past, including Versailles. No other country amends treaties once signed so it is the normal practice Internationally. Obama would have to bring back a TPP treaty that the Senate would ratify.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How many other countries have governments that have to separately ratify a treaty rather than the signing authority having ratification authority? I've heard more than once on the board that people don't understand why the US has signed a treaty but doesn't abide by it because the Senate hasn't ratified it.

                          Also, our system of government was designed to make international interference difficult-to-impossible. The fact that multi-lateral treaties are almost impossible to achieve with the US is actually a strength. The Founding Fathers wanted a check and balance. The Senate checks and balances the Executive. The Congress also is the only part of the government that is supposed to develop law. So since the Executive has the power to negotiate a treaty, which can then be enforced on the US or any part thereof with the force of law, the Senate has the ability to alter said treaty.

                          Again, your point appears to be quite moot. If the Treaty as negotiated is palatable to the Senate, then it will be passed. Several of same have been passed. Joining the UN, NATO, SEATO, NAFTA among others. That you are arguing that the Senate must be STRIPPED of this power in order to allow the TPP to be negotiated and passed is tantamount to an admission that the TPP is in whole or in part NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES and that it CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED IN A WAY THAT IS PALATABLE TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. And that in order to hammer the TPP down, it is necessary for foreign powers to apply substantial pressure to the Senate of the United States to pass whatever agreement is generated, and that such pressure can only be placed upon the Senate of the United States if the Senate of the United States is presented with a treaty that they CANNOT AGREE TO IN PART AND DISAGREE WITH IN PART. And that the only way to FORCE IT DOWN THE SENATE'S THROAT is to STRIP THEM OF AUTHORITY TO REJECT PORTIONS OF THE TREATY and then PRESSURE THEM TO RATIFY THE TREATY.

                          So it's really simple, but I'll bold it for you.

                          THESE UNITED STATES DO NOT NEED TO STRIP THEIR SENATE OF THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT OR ALTER PORTIONS OF TREATIES THAT ARE NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THESE UNITED STATES. ANYONE WANTING TO NEGOTIATE A TREATY WITH THESE UNITED STATES SHOULD NEGOTIATE ONE THAT IS PALATABLE TO THE SENATE OF THESE UNITED STATES. IF THE SENATE ALTERS AN AGREEMENT AND RATIFIES IT, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT AND DON'T HAVE TO RATIFY THE ALTERED AGREEMENT.

                          Of course we could always do like China, agree to whatever you say and then do whatever the hell we want to anyway. But instead of just being a bunch of assholes who don't abide by **** and whose word isn't worth the paper it's written on, we have a clear method of clearly stating what parts of a negotiation we won't abide by.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm not making any particular argument for or against Senate power to negotiate and/or to ratify a treaty. I'm only pointing out that other countries are very reluctant to negotiate a treaty with the United States if the Senate has the power to amend it after it's been signed and before ratifying it. Fast track overcomes that difficulty and the Senate still has to ratify it. Without fast track authority on the TPP, I doubt if a treaty is possible, but I could be wrong.
                            Last edited by Sparlingo; 24 Apr 15, 19:00.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X