Trade Authorization supported by Obama and Republicans blocked by Senate Democrats

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 12:43 AM GMT
    Democrats filibuster Obama's Trade Bill:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/12/democrats-filibuster-obamas-trade-bill/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 12:48 AM GMT


    Are you sad or pissed off about that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    How gay.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    May 13, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    see News and Politics forum
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    May 13, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    I've heard this thing called both a "treaty" and a "trade agreement". Seems to me that either way requires congressional consent. The Constitution says a two-thirds majority of the Senate must concur on treaties, and gives congress the power to regulate trade with foreign governments. Seems to me that a Republican congress giving up their power this way is very strange to say the least, and probably not good news for the average American.

    I agree with the no-amendment aspect of TPA, but not the up-or-down simple majority vote. I would like to have the agreement posted for all to see for at least a week before congress votes, and it should be considered a "treaty" requiring 2/3's of the Senate to concur.

    If the rumours about the agreement are true, it shouldn't pass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    More Info:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/24/obama-escalates-push-back-against-elizabeth-warren-and-other-trade-deal-critics/

    I'd normally be for this type of legislation but without seeing the secret parts of the deal, its tough to decide.

    Neither Republican or Democrat seems to have a problem with confirming a trade agreement with countries that execute or imprison gays.

    I would expect more of Democrats who claim to support gay rights but this does serve another purpose of demonstrating Democrats hypocrisy.

    Democrats are more concerned with political contributions from homophobic unions than the lives of gays.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    May 13, 2015 6:26 PM GMT
    I think it's the growing attention among Democrats that the globalism we were all schooled on as healthy for our economy isn't working for us and is partly if not largely the cause of increasing income and wealth disparity. I'm not sure that's true but I'm not sure it isn't. We do need trade treaties and it does seem reasonable that the Executive can't negotiate with 8 countries and all of the Senate simultaneously. Obama says he's cognizant of the issues and is adding new safeguards like base compensation minimums and environmental safeguards. Obviously, I don't know if he has or not but some trade deal is needed or we will cede the market to China who is throwing around big bucks in the region. So I would have given him fast track but withheld my right to vote NO on the final product once it was made available which is would be before the vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 7:35 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidMore Info:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/24/obama-escalates-push-back-against-elizabeth-warren-and-other-trade-deal-critics/

    I'd normally be for this type of legislation but without seeing the secret parts of the deal, its tough to decide.

    Neither Republican or Democrat seems to have a problem with confirming a trade agreement with countries that execute or imprison gays.

    I would expect more of Democrats who claim to support gay rights but this does serve another purpose of demonstrating Democrats hypocrisy.

    Democrats are more concerned with political contributions from homophobic unions than the lives of gays.


    It's not about either Party. It's about Corporatocracy. The same is happening up here. Already the Conserv Feds have signed off on the China FIFA. No voting. Under it, if a Chinese company starts up here and violates our laws, either municipal, Provincial, or federal, and any of those laws cause them to lose profit, they are compensated without the public being privy to the payout amount, or the laws being violated. It will depend on internal leaks to the media for anyone to find out.

    You should like this, because I find a great many conservs would like Business to completely run your country, and ours.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    May 13, 2015 7:37 PM GMT
    ^^

    it's called wage and environmental arbitrage by large (mostly) corporations

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 9:18 PM GMT


    Juan, you should really CALM DOWN. You just posted 'legal aliens' ROFL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2015 9:26 PM GMT
    JuanPablomv89 said
    meninlove said

    Juan, you should really CALM DOWN. You just posted 'legal aliens' ROFL.

    Thats how you called me when I said I wont vote for any Democrat party candidate. Do you have the right to call latinos aliens?


    Oh now that's priceless. Link please.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2015 12:56 AM GMT


    Well, mx5, the filibustering dems are filibustering no more - they have joined the Republicans in going for this secret deal.

    If the Republicans want it, it must be good for all of you, right?