Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate[W:35]

GOP leaders mostly support the TPP, while most Dems oppose it.

From Newsweek:

Well, the TPP promises to be one of Washington’s most contentious fights during this Congress. But in an unusual way. Most business interests, Republicans and the Obama administration back the agreement, while virtually all of organized labor, most Democrats and environmental groups oppose it. The arguments about whether the pact is a job destroyer or a job creator echo the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) forged by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in the 1990s —an argument that continues decades after it passed.

So...if Obama's so doggone terrible for America and the American economy, why is the GOP supporting him on this? If Obama's the most liberal/socialist/communist president we've ever had, why are the Dems almost united in their opposition to the TPP?

I can't help but point out that this is another example (along with the Heritage Foundation invention we now call Obamacare) of Obama being more conservative than most conservatives will ever admit.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Who knows?

Obama doesn't like the blue collar union wing of the party, he never has.

I genuinely don't thnk he cares about most Americans. He's blocked efforts to restart industrial and extractive industry jobs and I think he's done so soley out of disdain for small town Americans.

He's not really conservative In outlook, I think he sees himsf as representing a narrow bloc

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Clearly an Islamifascist appeasement ploy.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

EMNofSeattle said:

Who knows?

Obama doesn't like the blue collar union wing of the party, he never has.

I genuinely don't thnk he cares about most Americans. He's blocked efforts to restart industrial and extractive industry jobs and I think he's done so soley out of disdain for small town Americans.

He's not really conservative In outlook, I think he sees himsf as representing a narrow bloc

Click to expand...

I highly doubt Obama backs alternative energy spurces out of spite.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Glen Contrarian said:

GOP leaders mostly support the TPP, while most Dems oppose it.

From Newsweek:

Well, the TPP promises to be one of Washington’s most contentious fights during this Congress. But in an unusual way. Most business interests, Republicans and the Obama administration back the agreement, while virtually all of organized labor, most Democrats and environmental groups oppose it. The arguments about whether the pact is a job destroyer or a job creator echo the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) forged by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in the 1990s —an argument that continues decades after it passed.

So...if Obama's so doggone terrible for America and the American economy, why is the GOP supporting him on this? If Obama's the most liberal/socialist/communist president we've ever had, why are the Dems almost united in their opposition to the TPP?

I can't help but point out that this is another example (along with the Heritage Foundation invention we now call Obamacare) of Obama being more conservative than most conservatives will ever admit.

Click to expand...

Honestly the only plausible explanation is Obama was bought, just unsure by who.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

OrphanSlug said:

Honestly the only plausible explanation is Obama was bought, just unsure by who.

Click to expand...

From the very beginning our government was designed to function by deal-making in Congress, and then with the president. I'd say it's possible that it was part of a backroom deal...

...but I think that it's more likely that Obama really does believe the TPP is in our best interests. Another possibility is that he made the deal to strengthen America's economic ties around the Pacific Rim as an economic firewall against China, and felt that was worth the economic pain that Warren's warning us about. Remember, of all the people in the world, our president - whoever he or she is at the time - has a broader view of what's going on, of what short- and long-term threats are out there.

None of us really know, and we can only guess the reasons why...but one thing I learned over the years was to not make assumptions of wrongdoing by anyone, but to first ask why (in that person's eyes) what he or she was doing was right. Of course, just because that person may believe that what he or she was doing was right doesn't make it right...but it does keep us from so quickly making the wrong assumption about that person.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Kobie said:

I highly doubt Obama backs alternative energy spurces out of spite.

Click to expand...

I wasnt thinking alternative energy, we need more of that, I was thinking the state of the timber industry primarily, but there are environmental regulations republicans have wanted to roll back that Obama will veto, for example air emissions standards mean there is no longer any smelters in the country, so metals like lead, zinc, silver etc has to be sent overseas to be smelted before it comes back here.

Several congressional leaders, such as senator Wyden of Ore have attempted to re open the O&C counties of Oregon to timber, Oregons rural counties outside of Portland have some of the highest poverty rates in the country.

Coos Bay used to have 18 timber mills now it is a shadow of it's former self and a fracking company wants to locate a huge gas export terminal on coos bay and the fringe environmentalists are holding it up in court.

Obama could champion legislation to remove standing from environmental groups to sue, but he won't

I will never be president, because neither party would like me, I would shake this country up

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Glen Contrarian said:

From the very beginning our government was designed to function by deal-making in Congress, and then with the president. I'd say it's possible that it was part of a backroom deal...

...but I think that it's more likely that Obama really does believe the TPP is in our best interests. Another possibility is that he made the deal to strengthen America's economic ties around the Pacific Rim as an economic firewall against China, and felt that was worth the economic pain that Warren's warning us about. Remember, of all the people in the world, our president - whoever he or she is at the time - has a broader view of what's going on, of what short- and long-term threats are out there.

None of us really know, and we can only guess the reasons why...but one thing I learned over the years was to not make assumptions of wrongdoing by anyone, but to first ask why (in that person's eyes) what he or she was doing was right. Of course, just because that person may believe that what he or she was doing was right doesn't make it right...but it does keep us from so quickly making the wrong assumption about that person.

Click to expand...

I keep going back to one key problem. The hype of these agreements does not match the eventual economic reality we can both see and put real empirical data behind. Because of, there is no reason to assume TPP does something different than what opening up China did, or other Asian trade agreements did, or what NAFTA did. The fact that economists are lining up against Obama, a few Dems, and Republicans on this tells me volumes.

The only explanation is someone got to Obama on this matter in a way for him to ignore the very labor groups that Republicans used to grill Obama for listening to in the first place. I'm legitimately baffled on how Obama can go along with this without some sort of incentive. Just unsure who or what is the source of that incentive.

Think about it, how would you sell this?

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

OrphanSlug said:

I keep going back to one key problem. The hype of these agreements does not match the eventual economic reality we can both see and put real empirical data behind. Because of, there is no reason to assume TPP does something different than what opening up China did, or other Asian trade agreements did, or what NAFTA did. The fact that economists are lining up against Obama, a few Dems, and Republicans on this tells me volumes.

The only explanation is someone got to Obama on this matter in a way for him to ignore the very labor groups that Republicans used to grill Obama for listening to in the first place. I'm legitimately baffled on how Obama can go along with this without some sort of incentive. Just unsure who or what is the source of that incentive.

Think about it, how would you sell this?

Click to expand...

Actually, there's quite a bit of support for the TPP among economists, and most Republicans - particularly in Congress - support passage of the TPP. It's my fellow Dems (and our progressive icon Elizabeth Warren) who are most strongly against it.

Think about that - Obama's with the GOP and the economists and against the Dems on this issue. Politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed.

I'm very progressive, and I like Warren a lot (I'd vote for her for president). Even my favorite economist Paul Krugman is against it, but in this instance, I'm not so eager to condemn Obama or the TPP.

Who knows? And I strongly think that there was indeed an incentive for Obama to go along, but I strongly doubt that it was a personal incentive in any way. Besides, he's smart enough to know that if he did take a personal incentive, the conservatives would gleefully expose it and use it to ruin him. It has to be an incentive that is for the benefit of the nation - I strongly doubt it could be anything else.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

because he's a pro-corporate authoritarian compromising pragmatist who only leans left on social issues?

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

SlevinKelevra said:

because he's a pro-corporate authoritarian compromising pragmatist who only leans left on social issues?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go with, because the President is a pawn of the Progressive Machine, and is compelled to follow it's efforts to create a One World Economy, with open borders, and a central committee controlling it all.

Our trade negotiators over many decades have proven to be inept, or, depending on who is controlling them, quite savvy. I suppose it depends on the end game.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

SlevinKelevra said:

because he's a pro-corporate authoritarian compromising pragmatist who only leans left on social issues?

Click to expand...

Not surprisingly you're again, wrong. Oil and power in this country is corporate and some of the largest business in America - he leans left on that front as well funneling hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many now failed green energy company's. He fights oil pipelines in deference to rich far left donors (i.e., Tom Steyer).

Billionaire Liberal Donor Gets Way on Keystone Pipeline | RealClearPolitics

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

Not surprisingly you're again, wrong. Oil and power in this country is corporate and some of the largest business in America - he leans left on that front as well funneling hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many now failed green energy company's. He fights oil pipelines in deference to rich far left donors (i.e., Tom Steyer).

Billionaire Liberal Donor Gets Way on Keystone Pipeline | RealClearPolitics

Click to expand...

and yet oil production in the usa is at record levels.
U.S. oil production reaches all-time high amid depressed crude prices - Fortune

further, protecting our most important acquifers is a CONSERVATIVE position- or should be.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

SlevinKelevra said:

and yet oil production in the usa is at record levels.
U.S. oil production reaches all-time high amid depressed crude prices - Fortune

further, protecting our most important acquifers is a CONSERVATIVE position- or should be.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant given my point was to correct your statement saying Obama only leans left on social issues.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

Irrelevant given my point was to correct your statement saying Obama only leans left on social issues.

Click to expand...

"Leans left"?

The man is careened.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

Irrelevant given my point was to correct your statement saying Obama only leans left on social issues.

Click to expand...

then why did you introduce the topic?

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Fearandloathing said:

"Leans left"?

The man is careened.

Click to expand...

Yeh, except he hasn't.

The Political Compass
and for comparison
The Political Compass
The Political Compass

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

SlevinKelevra said:

then why did you introduce the topic?

Click to expand...

I introduced it as I already stated - to show your claim was incorrect. Why would you bring up an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with my statement? (That's a rhetorical question btw).

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

I introduced it as I already stated - to show your claim was incorrect. Why would you bring up an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with my statement? (That's a rhetorical question btw).

Click to expand...

both points I raised were in direct response to yours

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

SlevinKelevra said:

both points I raised were in direct response to yours

Click to expand...

Your point is irrelevant - your statement saying Obama only leans left on social issues was proven wrong. Can I help you with anything else?

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

Not surprisingly you're again, wrong. Oil and power in this country is corporate and some of the largest business in America - he leans left on that front as well funneling hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many now failed green energy company's. He fights oil pipelines in deference to rich far left donors (i.e., Tom Steyer).

Billionaire Liberal Donor Gets Way on Keystone Pipeline | RealClearPolitics

Click to expand...

That’s funny ock, you obediently believe an editorial that tells you President Obama opposes keystone as payback to liberal backers and you think it proves your point. You seem unable to understand that a lot of big money opposes the pipeline. Not just railroads and Buffet’s railroad as you have been very easily led to believe. A lot of oil interests benefit from a lack of pipline. Producers want the pipeline, buyers don’t. I owned a refiner stock that was literally buying Canadian oil 50 bucks a barrel cheaper that brent and sells the finished product based on the price of brent.

The ease with you are able to convince yourself what you want to believe is amazing. You should subject your own beliefs to the level of scrutiny you put on others. Case in point, the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” was a Bush program. See how your radio masters shield you from even the simpliest data to insure your unwavering obedience to their agenda?
I’m actually glad President Obama came out against the pipeline. It insures that republicans will be for it. They just need to work on the “it’ll create a couple hundred jobs” narrative. Not catchy or compelling. But it does fit on a bumber sticker.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Vern said:

That’s funny ock, you obediently believe an editorial that tells you President Obama opposes keystone as payback to liberal backers and you think it proves your point. You seem unable to understand that a lot of big money opposes the pipeline.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of big money that was for the pipeline too. However Steyer money is like Koch money and it wasn't ignored. And frankly, there was no real opposition to the notion that Steyer was calling the shots. If you'd like to present a rebuttal with facts I'm all ears.

Vern said:

The ease with you are able to convince yourself what you want to believe is amazing.

Click to expand...

Why don't you explain to me how I convince myself since you seem to be an expert in it and know me so much better than I know myself. :lamo

I'll simply ignore the rest of your rubbish - just stick to facts. Dazzle me.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Vern said:

The ease with you are able to convince yourself what you want to believe is amazing. You should subject your own beliefs to the level of scrutiny you put on others. .

Click to expand...

I cant believe that you, of all people, just wrote that. Perhaps you might take your own advice here.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Ockham said:

There was a lot of big money that was for the pipeline too. However Steyer money is like Koch money and it wasn't ignored. And frankly, there was no real opposition to the notion that Steyer was calling the shots. If you'd like to present a rebuttal with facts I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

"this conservative editorial says Steyer was calling the shots" is funny all by itself but now its true because "there was no real opposition". But Ock, don't forget your first "fact" to prove your editorial that was " Steyer was calling the shots" was the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s”. What happened to that "proof"? Oh yea, it turned out to yet another hilarious example of " cons will believe anything".

Why don't you explain to me how I convince myself since you seem to be an expert in it and know me so much better than I know myself. :lamo

Click to expand...

Look! the "pretend not to know what I'm talking about" routine. yes Ock, we already know you are a conservative but even you have to remember "Case in point, the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” was a Bush program. " Remember , you used that hilarious narrative to convince yourself that the editorial you posted was true. Sorry Ock, pretending not to know didn't make it magically go away.

I'll simply ignore the rest of your rubbish - just stick to facts. Dazzle me.

Click to expand...

rubbish? you posted the hilarious “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” narrative as proof not me. And then you resorted to the "no real opposition" as your back up narrative. And Ock, I did dazzle you when I told you “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” was a Bush program. You were so dazzled you have to pretend not to remember you posted it and it forced you to come up with your back up narrative "no real opposition".

Fletch said:

I cant believe that you, of all people, just wrote that. Perhaps you might take your own advice here.

Click to expand...

er uh Fletch, besides the fact that he posted an "editorial" as proof, I also pointed out that his "proof" of the editorial was the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” was actually a Bush program. See I posted an example of what he convinced himself of. You simply imply that it applies to me. See con (or con like poster), you have to post about me and not what I post.

Re: Why does Obama support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if liberal Democrats hate i

Vern said:

"this conservative editorial says Steyer was calling the shots" is funny all by itself but now its true because "there was no real opposition". But Ock, don't forget your first "fact" to prove your editorial that was " Steyer was calling the shots" was the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s”. What happened to that "proof"? Oh yea, it turned out to yet another hilarious example of " cons will believe anything".

Click to expand...

So no facts. I didn't think so.

Vern said:

Look! the "pretend not to know what I'm talking about" routine. yes Ock, we already know you are a conservative but even you have to remember "Case in point, the “funneling of hundreds of millions of tax dollars into many failed green energy company’s” was a Bush program. " Remember , you used that hilarious narrative to convince yourself that the editorial you posted was true. Sorry Ock, pretending not to know didn't make it magically go away.

Click to expand...

Also no facts... :yawn:

Vern said:

rubbish?

Click to expand...

Yes rubbish.

Sorry but your post is boring accusation and ad hominem to another poster having nothing to do with the OP.... therefore... boring. Go bait and accuse someone who's willing to play.