Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trade Bill Fails In the House

Posted by Soulskill on from the might-want-to-work-on-a-transcongressional-partnership-first dept.

schwit1 writes: President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill. "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. By doing so, they brought down legislation granting the president trade promotion authority — the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress — before it could even come to a final vote." This was after Silicon Valley heavyweights made a last minute push to pass the bill and the White House got personal with many Democratic lawmakers.

53 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. so trade bills by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    are the last vestige of the place congresscritters respect the will of their voters

    in every other realm plutocrats own them

    this will be "corrected"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so trade bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFM, this isn't TPP or any of those treaties. This is some other small sacrificial lamb so everyone stops paying attention.

    2. Re:so trade bills by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right, this isn't a treaty, it's the president's authority to "fast-track" trade bills (like the TPP, TTIP and newly-revealed TiSA) past congress that was shot down.

    3. Re:so trade bills by neghvar1 · · Score: 2

      RTFM, this isn't TPP or any of those treaties. This is some other small sacrificial lamb so everyone stops paying attention.

      What this would have aloud is for Obama to submit the TPP to congress and all they can do is yeh or nay. No debate, no amendments. Since the TPA did not pass, when it is proposed to congress, it is open to debate, amendment and the public.

    4. Re:so trade bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Regardless. This is a good thing. It puts the power back in the hands of congress and takes it away from the emperor^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPresident.

    5. Re:so trade bills by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The defeat of fast-track authority makes it more likely that the content of the TPP will be revealed to the public before it gets voted on. If fast-track had passed, the TPP would have been the world's largest shrink-wrap agreement.

    6. Re:so trade bills by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which means it will have no chance of passing.

      ... which means the countries of the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia, will stop looking to America for economic leadership. Most of them, likely including Japan, and certainly Australia, will join the Chinese led AIIB. Without America, TPP is dead, but there will likely be a new free trade agreement to replace it, anchored on China, rather than America.

      When the history book of America's decline is written, this will likely be listed as one of the milestones.

    7. Re:so trade bills by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      TAA, a displaced workers assistance bill failed. TPA passed the house. They're going to take this to the 7th game.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:so trade bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If "economic leadership" requires sacrificing our highest held values, (the right to self-rule, the public's input on how it is governed, etc.), then I'm all for letting another country take the lead.

      The problem with these so called "agreements" is that they have become a host for the agendas of special interests, who seek to actively harm society in-general for their own self-benefit. Given that, regardless of which country takes over as "economic leader", it will only be a matter of time before the demands of the special interest groups become too much for their societies to bear, and their societies will revolt as a result.

      Countries that promote this kind of behavior against their people, are only hastening their own demise, and I for one am happy and grateful that in this one case the leadership in the US made the correct decision.

    9. Re:so trade bills by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      At least they're more. It increases the chance, at least ever so slightly, that crap like TTIP can't simply be rubber stamped without anyone noticing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:so trade bills by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for the warning. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:so trade bills by lq_x_pl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So long as the power stays split up (mostly) evenly in 1/3s, we have gridlock to expect, which is preferable to what you get when the power is less evenly spread.

      --
      An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
    12. Re:so trade bills by tsotha · · Score: 2

      True, but this is all pre-maneuvering for a treaty vote nobody cares about... because they have no idea what's in the treaty. TPA, like cloture, allows Congress to vote for something and later pretend they're voting against it.

    13. Re:so trade bills by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without America, TPP is dead, but there will likely be a new free trade agreement to replace it, anchored on China, rather than America.

      That's because China sees a trade agreement as being about trade and making money, not a means of furthering the global agendas of whichever megacorporations pay the people writing it the most money. I'm from a country that has a free trade agreement with China, negotiated openly and available for anyone to check (heck, there's even a web site set up to tell you all you need to know), that basically says "you sell us your stuff, we sell you ours, the rest is up to you". That's a free trade agreement, not the stuff US corporations are trying to force on the world.

    14. Re:so trade bills by DonaldGary · · Score: 2

      I went to Berkeley in the 60's. According to communist theory, the first step in destroying a society was to polarize it.

  2. Clinton Democrats by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    showing the Obama Democrats who's boss.

    1. Re:Clinton Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt there's many Obama Democrats left. Everyone knows it's a sinking ship.

      Yes, there's this amazing technology called a "calendar" that lets you know when an eight-year period of time has elapsed.

      I'm not certain that "everyone" is intelligent enough to work this new-fangled device, though.

    2. Re:Clinton Democrats by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      More like centrist Warren Democrats and Sanders Democrats showing Clinton we remember how her husband sold our jobs out.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Clinton Democrats by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mr. Clinton and Mrs. Clinton, the former Walmart exec., gave China MFN status which started the huge growth of Chinese industry in the late 90's. The common "Walmart America" upper middle class Clintonista is all about shelves full of Chinese stuff to fill their mcmansions, and with the possible exception of Obama you can't find a bigger proponent of TPP than Clinton.

      It was Obama Democrats that tripped up this trade deal. Blacks, labor and others have been made surplus people through competition with disposable foreign workers and they've finally — after half a century — figured it out.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Clinton Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And here I've been buying one-year calendars like a schmuck. Eight-year calendars, what a time to be alive!

  3. Time frame simply too long by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the summary is trying to make this some kind of huge rebuff of the President by democrats in Congress, the only serious problem with this bill is it was for too long of a time period. Obama is only in office for another 18 months, and this fast track authority would have extended years after he is gone. This vote had almost nothing to do with democrats not trusting Obama; it was them not trusting the unknown President who will take his mantle a couple years from now.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Time frame simply too long by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sadly, it isn't that simple. Basically what happened is that the Senate passed a bill (62-37) that coupled the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) extension with an amendment that extended a worker retraining program. In the House the bills were decoupled. The vote rejected the *retraining* bill (but passed the TPA bill) which effectively requires a revote by the senate to grant TPA separately (if the goal is to get it in a form for the president to sign it rather than just blame someone for its failure to pass).

      The extension alluded to by the OP is that there is an extension clause in the bill that allows the president to request an extension from 2018 to 2021, but the extension must be requested before June 30, 2018. If either house can pass a bill that rejects this extension, it is considered denied. FWIW, a similar extension clause has been in most TPA that have been granted in the past and were generally put in as a safety in case negotiations schedules are not maintained.

      The only foreseeable situation that this affects is if one party were in control of both houses and the presidency, the out-party could then still theoretically filibuster a vote on a negotiated treaty in the Senate if the TPA authority was not in effect. However, with the recent change in filibuster rules of the senate regarding nominations by the democrats (the so-called 'nuclear-option' that was exercised), it isn't inconceivable that filibustering a treaty could trigger a similar 'nuclear' option in the senate if it came down to it, so it may not even matter in practice and is kind of a red herring.

      As to why TPA is necessary, it of course isn't, but not having it allows a few members of congress to essentially hold the enabling legislation for a treaty hostage by offering amendments or failing to issue a committee report to allow a floor vote. Since adding an amendment would force the negotiators back to the table, it is presumed that other treaty parties would never offer their best level of concessions during ordinary negotiations (saving them to counter future nit-picking terms offered by rouge legislators) resulting in a sub-optimal agreement for us.

      The TPA isn't like the war powers resolution in that it is a bill that affects the rules congress applies to itself by simply limiting debate, amendments and other procedural measures (which it is of course free to do to itself and has done many times in the past). The WPR is hotly debated as being unconstitutional in that it appears allows the president to take unilateral action and report on it later without action from congress. Also, the TPA also has many provisions in it directs negotiations a certain way and if the president ignores them, the TPA is effectively revoked (debate and amendments are then allowed in these areas). Unlike the WPR, the TPA allows congress to reject a treaty *before* it takes effect (not after the fact like the WPR).

    2. Re:Time frame simply too long by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I think Carter is the only president that I have witnessed doing more good out of office than he did while he was in office.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Trade authority by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress

    It is important to realize here that this does not mean that the bills would be automatically passed, rather that congress either has to say "yes" or "no," they can't add pork to the bill (like they tried on this one).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Trade authority by RyoShin · · Score: 2

      It also means there's far less time for the American people to actually read the bill and respond, assuming the administration even releases it after Fast-Track is approved.

      Not that many care at the moment, but there's a chance that with the full text out there a few of the talking heads on each station might call it out for the crap that it is.

  5. Contact your Congresscritters by RyoShin · · Score: 2

    To make it clear, this fight isn't over. The House and Senate can still hash out something to grant Fast-Track. The House still passed the Fast-Track part, it was only the assistance that failed and took the Fast-Track with it.

    I get the feeling that House Democrats voted they way they did knowing it would further stall the Fast-Track vote; it would be a lot easier to get Republicans to vote against that than the Fast-Track itself.

  6. I'll believe it when the people pushing it give up by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... there is a long way to go before declaring victory here.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  7. Welcome to Fascist America! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that the Government has already made similar deals with Canada and Mexico, so what we see now is simple hoodwinking. Wikileaks has blown their cover too many times and people are largely fed up. If they could have kept it all secret it would have happened, so now we have to find all of the back door bullshit they are pushing through elsewhere.

    The US has not been Capitalist since at least Reagan, but at least until NAFTA we could say "pseudo capitalist". More and more control, more and more wealth redistribution where the majority goes to the wealthy, Fascism at it's purest definition.

    How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems? (Not directed at GP, just a general audience question)

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems?

      That's sort of how the libertarian viewpoint evolves, I guess. Like Reagan started out as a democrat, presumably because he cared about people and favored social reforms. Then after living through the Communist purges in the McCarthy era, he realized that more government power means more chances for government abuse. Which is why he came to say, "Government is not the solution....government is the problem." As many people like to say, the NSA is a greater threat to US liberty than Al Qaeda.

      Which doesn't mean you have to like Reagan. The debts he piled up were unconscionable. Realizing that government bureaucracy can be as bad as a Kafka nightmare is something you can do no matter what party you prefer.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      How is that Utopia working out for all of you people that keep thinking more Government will solve all our problems?

      Are there, in fact, any people making that rather-broad argument, as opposed to, say, arguing that some particular problem might be better handled with more government?

    3. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

      morons who want to weaken or destroy our government are only helping the plutocrats. the power they have over you does not disappear when you weaken or destroy the government, all you do is give them a smaller roster of people to pay off

      the problem is not government

      the problem is the plutocrats who buy congresswhores and fake regulators

      you want to FIX government, not destroy it. cure it of its corruption

      if you have less government, less regulation, the power the plutocrats have over you does not disappear. they simply have less people they have to bribe. then they start hiring their own goon squads and turn you into slaves

      that's not science fiction, that's well establish american history:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[3] By the early 1890s, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America.

      During the labor strikes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to infiltrate unions, supply guards, keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, as well as recruiting goon squads to intimidate workers. One such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to reinforce the strikebreaking measures of industrialist Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie.[citation needed] The ensuing battle between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to the deaths of seven Pinkerton agents and nine steelworkers.[4] The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as well as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. The organization was pejoratively called the "Pinks" by its opponents.

      we defeated them with labor movements and unions. but, like you said, since reagan the unions have been broken up. scott walker is killing the last of them. and now the plutocrats are back in charge

      now we have to fight the fight of our great grandfathers, all over again

      the problem is legalized corruption in the usa. we need REGULATION. actual regulation, not corrupt regulation controlled by the people who are supposed to be regulated

      of course that's not perfect, but it is 9,000x better than no regulation and less government

      look to canada, the nordic countries: places where they actually have effective government, actual laws that control corruption. and where the people are happier, more socially mobile, and spend far less on healthcare and education than we do

      in the usa we have a supreme court who in 2010 said "money is speech" and so the rich now have the only real effective speech in the usa. probably the most anti-american and destructive event in the history of the usa. not the war of 1812, not the civil war, not pearl harbor, not 911: the most anti-american event in the history of this country was 2010's citizens united

      you want to strengthen your government, and have strong anti-corruption laws passed

      that's the only power you really have: your government. YOUR government, not the corrupted piece of shit we currently have. fight to get it back

      fix it, don't destroy it (morons who dream of shooting it out in the woods a la the second amendment and revolution are simply dead people waking: you don't have the numbers nor the firepower, and revolutions are far far worse than our current problems regardless)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education

      the problem is we want effective laws against corruption. yes: more government -> more government corruption is true as long as the usa does not effective laws against corruption. 2010's citizens united for example simply boldly stated legalized corruption is the way. we must reverse that and install many other anti-corruption laws and only then do we have fairness

      but less government and less regulation does not lead to less corruption, it simply means the plutocrats have less people they need to bribe to get what they want. that only helps them

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's sort of how the libertarian viewpoint evolves, I guess. Like Reagan started out as a democrat, presumably because he cared about people and favored social reforms. Then after living through the Communist purges in the McCarthy era, he realized that more government power means more chances for government abuse. Which is why he came to say, "Government is not the solution....government is the problem." As many people like to say, the NSA is a greater threat to US liberty than Al Qaeda.
       

      So, McCarthyism traumatized him so much that, after being FBI informant reporting on people's political beliefs, he then joined the party that fostered McCarthy, and subsequently used similar techniques against student protesters and pot smokers, which was the foundation of his actual political career, as opposed to his sound bites? Sure, whatever you say.

    6. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if we have less government, that's simply less people for the plutocrats to bribe, and their power is extended

      weaken government and plutocrats are not weakened, they are strengthened and emboldened

      libertarianism is extremely naive and uneducated as to history. you need a strong government to counterbalance the plutocrats. you do that with strong anticorruption laws

      the problem with our current government is we have a corrupt government. you don't solve that be weakening government, you solve that with strong anticorruption laws, make regulators and regulations actually regulate corporations, rather than simply be controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to regulate, the bullshit corrupt status quo we have now

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if we have less government, that's simply less people for the plutocrats to bribe, and their power is extended

      Now you're being silly......"less government" doesn't mean "fewer people," it means "less power." Reducing the power of government gives the people who bribe less power, and you know it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Interesting

      he nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education

      The important difference there is that the people of the Nordic countries (at least Sweden and Finland, where I visited and lived) still have faith in their institutions. Americans haven't had faith in our institutions since Watergate. It's not just the Government either; in increasing numbers Americans don't trust business, academia, religion, or any other reasonably sized institution.

      The reasons for this are varied -- you could write an entire thesis on the subject -- but at the end of the day it's the reality of the situation, and a Nordic style welfare state is a non-starter in the United States.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Funny

      the nordic countries and canada have more government than us and far less corruption. the people are happier, more socially mobile, and pay far less for healthcare and education

      Canada had this idea that most of the laws would be made in what they call 'Provinces', and only laws that had to be made at a nation-wide level would be made by the national government. This means you have different laws in different parts of the country, which can be tailored to what the people who live there want. Quebec even has its own immigration policy.

      If only America had tried something similar, it probably wouldn't be in such a mess.

    10. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by onemorechip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It gives them less need to do any bribing. They just go out and do what they want with no resistance.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
    11. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Reducing the power of government gives the people who bribe less power, and you know it.

      The people who bribe don't just do it to co-opt the power of government. They also do it to direct the power of government away from them. In effect, they're "buying" power from the government. Reducing the power of government justs lets the bribers get what they want for free.

      I'm not saying that bribing should be Business as Usual. Rather, I think circletimessquare is right: the solution is to enact tough laws against corruption (i.e., bribery.)

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    12. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Being Canadian I can say you have only part of the story correct. First of all Canada is 1/10 the size of the US at best so 'size' is a matter of perspective with respect to 'more government' & since corruption & inefficiency follow 'size' of any organization if Canada has the population of the US I have no doubt there'd be signifcantly less 'happy & socially mobile' Canadians.

      On the topic of healthcare, it may be cheaper but its a bit hard to argue it is 'better', depending on your definition of 'better'. Yes everyone has access to tax sponsor healthcare (not 'free healthcare' as some would make you believe) & it's reasonably good healthcare too BUT for some ailments that aren't considered life threatening there is a queue & no local options to get around that queue even if you have the money & are willing to pay it (happened to my brother for a knee injury who had to indure the pain for 18 months). And there are some prescriptions for even things like Cancer that you simply aren't allowed to pay for out of your own pocket if the government/doctor has decided you have received your 'alotment' (happened to a friend of mine who had cancer & handled a different more expensive drug better than the one 'alotted' to her. She was willing to pay for it but 'nope, we can't allow that'...). Last but not least, those Canadians with the 'real means' (eg. sufficient money) go to private care in the US...and I'm betting similar happens with nordic/Euro countries. Consider sports stars or government officials etc., you don't REALLY think they get treated like the rest of the peones do you?

      O, and regarding education. Again Canada benefits from being next door to the US. Again, it's reasonably good education through University (I have an M.Sc in Physics from a generally considered 'world class' University...e.g. the Physics department is generally considered 'top notch'), but it can also be limiting. My niece went to school in the US to become an Optomistrist because there were no 'seats' for her in Canada, a friend of mine sent his son to University in the US (partly paid by scholarships in lacrosse...he was really good). In both cases they had sufficient money to pay for the US college education (and neither family could be considered 'wealthy' except in comparison to the poverty line). I even have another good friend that went to college in the US to get her Chirotpractic degree (again no 'seats' in Canada, and her husband's family WAS 'wealthy' & could subsidize them while he got a job) & SHE slags the US all the time (huh? you benefit from a system that allowed you to pay your way & get around the Canadian system but somehow that 'system' is bad?).

      I suspect (obviously without proof) that if the US 'system' was like Canada's there would be ALOT more screaming on both sides of the border. As it is Canadian's can sit back & feel smug while pointing at the US as being 'broken' and not 'helping their citizens'. Don't get me wrong, I love my country of birth, it really is a beautiful place & generally a good place to live & yes Canadians probably are the 'nicest people you'll meet' (again in general, we have assholes too) but it benefits greatly from proximity to the US (given the US gets alot of our oil, water & many raw materials I hope they'd find the benefits 'equal').

    13. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      if there is less government what the fuck do you think the plutocrats do? they simply start instituting policies and enforcing them on their own. then you don't even have a fake corrupt government to redress your grievances, you simply are a slave with no rights at all

      this is not science fiction. this is historical fact:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Pinkerton's agents performed services ranging from security guarding to private military contracting work. Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.[3] By the early 1890s, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America.

      During the labor strikes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businessmen hired the Pinkerton Agency to infiltrate unions, supply guards, keep strikers and suspected unionists out of factories, as well as recruiting goon squads to intimidate workers. One such confrontation was the Homestead Strike of 1892, in which Pinkerton agents were called in to reinforce the strikebreaking measures of industrialist Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie.[citation needed] The ensuing battle between Pinkerton agents and striking workers led to the deaths of seven Pinkerton agents and nine steelworkers.[4] The Pinkertons were also used as guards in coal, iron, and lumber disputes in Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as well as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921. The organization was pejoratively called the "Pinks" by its opponents.

      idiots like you help those who are raping you, by listening to their lies and blaming the only thing you have left to fight them: your government. if morons like you get your way, we are all raped 10x worse. you want to FIX your government. make it stronger and less corrupt. if you reduce it, it simply stays corrupt and plutocrats can rape us all even more

      whatever counterweight do you have to plutocrats? you're going to shoot it out with them in the woods? then enjoy your short life, stupid douchebag

      instead, why don't you try educating yourself and finding out what you really need to improve your life. step #1: stop believing lies and propaganda intended to keep you dumb and powerless

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Actually Canada was created to have a strong Federal Government as the Fathers of Confederation had just watched the failure of the American experiment (States having quite a bit of independence) in the form of the civil war (they were also worried about the Union turning north for more conquests). Since then the courts have given the Provinces more and more power which is the opposite of the USA where the Federal Government has acquired more and more power with the support of the courts.
      In both cases the founding documents were not clear on certain things which is why it has had to go to the courts and some things are worse in Canada such as inter-Provincial trade.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    15. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      democrats and republicans play this game. it is a sick game and it needs to end

      are you telling me you are for corruption because clinton does it?

      republicans should be allowed to do evil things because clintons do evil things?

      "democratsmurdered somebody so republicans should be able to murder someone"

      is that morality in your mind? two wrongs make a right?

      the bullshit partisan nature of politics makes people so stupid they will cut out their own eye because the other side said they shouldn't

      what are your morals? what are you principles? fuck the tribal partisan bullshit

      it's like the morons who go "al gore rides a jet plane that pollutes, therefore he's a hypocrite, therefore all climate change is not real and should not be opposed"

      the usa has a poisonous moronic partisan atmosphere that keeps things the way they are: corrupt

      i want to stop corruption, and instead of support from you, i get moronic attacks on clinton. you are the reason we have our problems. your vindictive hate is stronger in you than any intelligence in you to help your own damn self. this is how they control, divide and conquer, keep you poor and angry and dumb

      fuck the democrats. fuck the republicans. what do YOU want for YOURSELF you propagandized motherfucker?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may be a valid point, but it's worth mentioning that the welfare state doesn't have to be run at the national level. Much of Kela is run and funded by municipalities, not the national Government. Finland leads the world in education yet has no standardized tests or national curriculum mandates. Intuitive at the local level is encouraged, not stifled.

      Of course it still won't happen here, even if we got over our love affair with top-down control. Our mistrust of institutions doesn't begin or end with the Federal Government. I do find these conversations interesting though; people on the American left talk a big game about how awesome the Nordic countries are but very few of them actually know anything about them. Finland has no concept of tuition -- even foreigners can go study there for free (with only one barrier to entry, it's called "Finnish") -- but they also have universal conscription.

      Think there are many people on the American left that would support universal conscription? Not bloody likely. Which is too bad, because it would actually make interventionism less likely, not more. Anyhow, I digress.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Welcome to Fascist America! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      To be correct the spies would have had to be who he said they were instead of just the targets he picked to progress his political ambitions - thus he was WRONG.

      Mary Jane Keeney, among actually a great many others. McCarthy singled her out himself, and her own diary proved that she was a spy for the Soviets. There are many other such examples I could list here if I wanted to take the time. Annie Lee Moss, who worked at the Pentagon, turned out to be a member of the Communist Party.

      Many years later, "liberated" Russian records confirmed McCarthy's suspicions about others.

      So no, McCarthy was not "wrong". Yes, there were Russian spies, and it's a matter of public record.

      About the man himself, I have no opinion. He might have been an asshole. But I don't "support him out of loyalty to the party", because I'm not "supporting" him at all, nor am I even a member of his party.

      I was just commenting that he did, in fact, turn out to be right. Whatever party he was in, and whatever else you may think of him.

  8. Suck It Palpatine! by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2

    "Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute. Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly battleships, the greedy Trade Federation has stopped all shipping to the small planet of Naboo. While the Congress of the Republic endlessly debates this alarming chain of events, the Supreme Chancellor has secretly dispatched two Jedi Knights, the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, to settle the conflict..."

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Suck It Palpatine! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic. The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute..."

      And by the time the public realizes that the character Jar-Jar Obama, however controversial in his own right, was just a ploy by the Cronies to distract us from their plans for galactic domination, it will be too late.

  9. Obama Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were never any Obama Democrats. The first couple of years of this administration was all Nancy Pelosi. When she was kicked out, Harry Reid blocked pretty much anything significant until he was kicked out. Obama has never worked with Congress and doesn't know how to get anything done now that he should.

  10. Secret non-Treaty Treaties by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TTP should be a Treaty, but what it is instead is a secret agreement that Congress would vote on as a regular bill, not a Treaty. The whole point of "fast track" is that it wouldn't be approved even on this basis, so the President needs advance approval on an agreement with terms that are not final and in any case cannot be legally revealed in public. (Congressmen and women have to go to a special room to read them, and can't take notes out.)

    Never mind that this "trade agreement" really just represents corporations trying to get things through the back door they could never get through Congress directly, even if it just contained recipes for Apple pie it should be opposed by anyone who cares about our Constitutional system of Government. Treaties, or for that matter normal laws, can be negotiated in private, but they need to be discussed and passed in public.

    1. Re:Secret non-Treaty Treaties by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      It contains recipes for Apple Profits, actually.

      Not just Apple profits, of course, but they're among the others lined up at the trough. It's about the WalMartization of a big chunk of the globe.

  11. Watch the other hand! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Democrats voted against TAA (the fig-leaf program that pretends to help workers who lose their jobs to a new trade bill), which was contrary to their normal voting pattern, AS A TACTIC TO INDUCE A DELAY. "Fast Track" actually PASSED. Given that TAA and Fast Track passed together in the Senate, their failure to pass together in the House is a temporary shoe tossed into the gears of this monstrosity, BUT it can be overcome easily by the Senate simply mimicking what the House did.

    This was political magic for a bunch of people; Democrats Senators will be able to tell their union supporters that they supported TAA (in the earlier Senate action), even as enough of them voted for Fast Track. Democrat House members will be able to say they stood against Fast Track, even though many supported it and the Senate may align their work with what the House did and thereby pass it. Many Republicans who opposed Fast Track were able to vote "yes" in order to placate their business backers even as the thing stalled. Many Republicans who oppose TAA but did not want to be the ones to kill it got to watch as the Dems did that, etc. Nearly every political group in DC got something they can use to deceive this or that voting block. Ultimately, the groups pushing this massive crap sandwich are going to demand it and get it, unless the public (from labor-concerned Dems, to sovereignty-concerned TEA Partiers) stand up and make it clear that votes out-weigh campaign cash.

    After 200+ years, the congress critters have highly-optimized the political theater in Washington so their big money backers get what they want without the public getting too mad. They have gotten away with this garbage over and over again with things like NAFTA, the WTO, etc. People on the other side of the Atlantic have had the same thing done to them by their political elites.... The UK into the EU, followed by continual-but-never-filfilled promises of a public vote on that membership was such a trick that subsumed national rules into an international agreement. These things are all alike: they allow the wealthy and powerful to get what they want and the politicians to pretend to be powerless because: unaccountable international body and treaty. They never want the public to ask "WHO CREATED THAT BODY OR THAT TREATY?"

  12. Some policies must have a "national" consensus by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Yes. Congress is MUCH more responsible with the use of their power than the President is.

    Both cooperation and gridlock are preferable to a lone individual making US trade policy. Some national policies must have a national consensus of some sort.

    1. Re:Some policies must have a "national" consensus by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its easier to buy one President than 535 members of Congress.

      And for some truly ill-advised and unpopular ideas its more practical to wait for a President of a suitable ideological bent than wait for a Congressional majority.

      Hence the founding fathers wisely distributing powers amongst branches. Ie the executive negotiating a treaty, the legislature making it law, and the supreme court deciding if the law is constitutional.