US Politics: I fought the Law, and the Law won

[peterbound]

I've always wanted to start one of these threads.

Try not to get this one locked.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

So, what are we "allowed" to talk about

[aceluby]

I don't think I've been around long enough to see a politics thread get locked.

So, what are we "allowed" to talk about

lol

[Guest]

Dying to know what now-deleted post I missed.

Krauthammer backed Obama today on the trade deal in a column today going with the David Ricardo thesis that trade is a win-win while carefully admitting that any deal does create winners and losers (so i think his point was not that there aren't losers in any deal; just that it's largely a win-win).

I would be curious if anyone has anything good on another point that he made though: that it's a big move towards hedging in China in the future global economy. Part of that thesis seems to concede that the deal is largely in support of big corporations but that there's an element of pre-empting China's influence beyond just lining the pockets of American firms.

I personally remain not too opinionated of the trade deal with my instincts being slightly against it.

[Guest]

rare double

[davos]

*Mod hat* Please do not feed the troll. Thank You. */Mod Hat*

[Guest]

Oh, I'd meant to mention these two things:

Russ Feingold is probably running for senate in Wisconsin and will have a great chance of beating Ron Johnson. It will be so unbelievably satisfying when it happens. Ron "we're living in Atlas Shrugged" Johnson should never have been a United States Senator, and he's not likely to be after 2016.

Next, how in God's name is it possible that Jeb Bush as the so-called establishment candidate was not prepared for questions about W's invasion of Iraq? How is this possible? How? He was asked about whether he would have invaded Iraq and had not thought about the possibility of being asked this question. How?

[davos]

Oh, I'd meant to mention these two things:

Russ Feingold is probably running for senate in Wisconsin and will have a great chance of beating Ron Johnson. It will be so unbelievably satisfying when it happens. Ron "we're living in Atlas Shrugged" Johnson should never have been a United States Senator, and he's not likely to be after 2016.

Next, how in God's name is it possible that Jeb Bush as the so-called establishment candidate was not prepared for questions about W's invasion of Iraq? How is this possible? How? He was asked about whether he would have invaded Iraq and had not thought about the possibility of being asked this question. How?

I would be thrilled to see Johnson gone and Feingold back in. The former is one of the most incompetent senators in living memory and I' frankly offended to be represented by him. Feingold in contrast was one of the most effective and committed public servants in congress throughout his tenor and was a credit to the institution. One would think that this would be a no-brainer. I'm not counting on it happening. WI politics have broken my heart numerous times over the past 5 years, starting with Feingold's loss in 2010. I have no confidence that this state will do the sane thing and correct its mistake. Lots of money will pour in to save Johnson's sorry ass and to keep Feingold out at any cost.

As for Jeb's Iraq War comments, he's a Bush. The lack of thought should not surprise you.

[Guest]

As for Jeb's Iraq War comments, he's a Bush. The lack of thought should not surprise you.

Fool me twice...y' can't get fooled again.

[MerenthaClone]

Fool me twice...y' can't get fooled again.

I'll actually defend this as a decent last-minute dodge of him not creating a "shame on me" soundbite that probably would have caused more damage than what we actually got did.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Is this recent Amtrak incident really being used as a political hammer?

[Guest]

I'll actually defend this as a decent last-minute dodge of him not creating a "shame on me" soundbite that probably would have caused more damage than what we actually got did.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about one instance. It's like they've already fumbled and fumbled again. Like, without the benefit of the incredible Hubble telescope, someone from Geidi Prime can tell that the Jeb Bush team has been caught completely flat-footed by the Iraq question.

[aceluby]

Dying to know what now-deleted post I missed.

Krauthammer backed Obama today on the trade deal in a column today going with the David Ricardo thesis that trade is a win-win while carefully admitting that any deal does create winners and losers (so i think his point was not that there aren't losers in any deal; just that it's largely a win-win).

I would be curious if anyone has anything good on another point that he made though: that it's a big move towards hedging in China in the future global economy. Part of that thesis seems to concede that the deal is largely in support of big corporations but that there's an element of pre-empting China's influence beyond just lining the pockets of American firms.

I personally remain not too opinionated of the trade deal with my instincts being slightly against it.

This makes it scarier for me. If they need to use China as some sort of boogey man, like they do for the deficit/debt, then my immediate instinct is to disregard it as an actual substantive argument. What next, telling us it's tough on terrorism too?

Plus, who is going to sue the Chinese govt with basically no regulations or copyright laws?

[DanteGabriel]

I'll actually defend this as a decent last-minute dodge of him not creating a "shame on me" soundbite that probably would have caused more damage than what we actually got did.

"I was for it before I was against it."

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Dying to know what now-deleted post I missed.

Krauthammer backed Obama today on the trade deal in a column today going with the David Ricardo thesis that trade is a win-win while carefully admitting that any deal does create winners and losers (so i think his point was not that there aren't losers in any deal; just that it's largely a win-win).

I would be curious if anyone has anything good on another point that he made though: that it's a big move towards hedging in China in the future global economy. Part of that thesis seems to concede that the deal is largely in support of big corporations but that there's an element of pre-empting China's influence beyond just lining the pockets of American firms.

I personally remain not too opinionated of the trade deal with my instincts being slightly against it.

Ricardo is fine to the extent that we know trade will lead to overrall economic growth, but that doesn't speak to concerns over the distribution of wealth created and deregulatory pressure. TPP attempts to hedge China in to the extent that it wants to force it to follow certain rules (liberalized markets, intellectual property protection, investor-state arbitration) by creating a trade block it feels it must be part of to be competitive in global capitalism. We might look at China- widely considered corrupt, oppressive, and an unfair trading partner- and say this is a good thing, but we must also consider the challenge to smaller and more democratic states. If agreement to an international regulatory framework is required to thrive in a globalized economy, the ability of democratic institutions to bring capital to heel is diminished, the space to make regulatory decisions without financial repercussion or trade ostracization is diminished. Globalization is already real, of course, and these issues don't all hang on TPP, but I think we need to be wary of further entrenchment of a global economic system that empowers transnational corporations at the expense of localized democratic institutions.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'm not completely sure about the TPP itself, but I'm pretty sure that Warren and co are being at least slightly disingenuous about their intentions. If you let 535 legislators suggest amendments to a trade deal that's being negotiated among 11 different countries in a location thousands of miles from said legislators, you are de facto killing it. It'd be like if the state legislators of Virginia could make amendments to the proposed Constitution instead a simple up down vote. Warren knows this.

[awesome possum]

Krauthammer backed Obama today on the trade deal

Well if we ever need more proof that it's a bad deal, there it is.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm not completely sure about the TPP itself, but I'm pretty sure that Warren and co are being at least slightly disingenuous about their intentions. If you let 535 legislators suggest amendments to a trade deal that's being negotiated among 11 different countries in a location thousands of miles from said legislators, you are de facto killing it. It'd be like if the state legislators of Virginia could make amendments to the proposed Constitution instead a simple up down vote. Warren knows this.

She does, that's why she opposed giving the executive branch the power for several years- not just for TPP- to negotiate trade agreements that Congress must vote yes or no on without amendment and that the Senate cannot fillibuster. I'm not sure where the disingenuousness comes in, she would like to kill TPP in its current form, and she would like to be in a position to kill future trade agreements she disagrees with. As far as I'm aware she has made no bones about this.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

One argument I find compelling is that the biggest beneficiary of the deal would be Vietnam. So not only would we be redistributing wealth to the poorest, but also given our recent history in that country, a favorable trade deal is the least we can do.

Of course that assumes that not all the benefits go to the rich in that country.

[Biglose]

I dare to say, that I do not think that warrens opposition to TPP has something to do with the fact that it might be favorable to vietnam.

It has more to do with the question of possibly circumvention american regulations.