General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJust Remember...the Farthest Left and the Alt-Right didn't Like TPP....
Link to tweet
Remember.....TPP was detrimental to China and Russia. Ask yourself who benefitted from all the noisemakers who decried it without ever acknowledging that fact. Without ever reading it. Remember all the astroturf OPs by now-banned trolls about the TPP?
When the extreme left and the alt right combine, and oligarchs get windfalls, maybe it's time to take a step back and not take for granted that a "progressive" stance is actually a progressive stance. Follow the money.
Now without the TPP, you have the Trump administration deciding trade policy to benefit Russia and China. How do you think that's gonna work out?
Think the left can't be persuaded by fake news??? Guess again....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028780691
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Demsrule86
(68,669 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)Jesus, what's with DU lately?
Many, many people feared corporations having the right to sue individual nations to avoid environmental and labor protections.
You shouldn't need to 'google' to remember that
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the 19tb century.
Fyi..... the United States trade office has never lost a case based on that right.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)They spew whatever their favorite blog said about it before the details were even released.
It was amazing how all of those places went silent once the text was released.
TPP wasn't perfect but it improves existing agreements by almost if not every measure.
The post you responded to is a perfect example. Doesn't matter that TPP actually improved the court redress system they cling to the companies suing countries boogyman.
In their defense there was so much BS spouted about the TPP unless you actually looked at the text yourself it was very difficult to find accurate information.
And Obama as was a problem throughout his admin sucked at educating the American people on it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1....who the fuck would have believed that any conservative was working on the part of Russia or China?
3... the inherent secrecy of trade deals and working with so many other nations hampered discussing specifics.
I actually think that the opposition to the TPP might have indicated to many intelligence agencies and Obama himself that's something Shifty was going on.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Obviously the ACA was and is not perfect but it was miles better than where we were before and they just couldn't get that message across .
It got so bad people were running from it during the mid terms instead of defending it like they should have been.
The Obama admin just was not good at fighting for the things they believed in.
Loved them and am grateful for the 8 years of scandal free stability, but they just were not good at messaging.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Because no one in the intelligence communities honestly believed that there was such complicity with Russia.
Jack abramoff Tom DeLay and their ties with Russia were seen as the outlier.... and not the norm.
By the way... Tom delays attorney? Is now the fucking White House counsel.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Either the U.S. or China. It was going to be the U.S. China was actually dropping its efforts to control the Pacific and shifting instead to expand domination west across Asia and down to coastal Africa. Now it's likely to be China in both directions.
JI7
(89,264 posts)Trump is destroying worker protections and mamy things.
mvd
(65,180 posts)Yes Trump probably doesn't want it because his family gets benefits. He really doesn't care about workers. The left doesn't like it because its creation was large corporation dominated without labor input. We can have a different trade plan. Remember, even Hillary came out against it after the details finally came out. Hillary is a good Democrat but NOT on the left at all. I say left because "far left" sounds derogatory.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
MedusaX
(1,129 posts)Steele Dossier pointed to Trump wanting to keep the focus of investigation on Russia to distract from his/family dealings in China .....
And is it a coincidence that the 19.5 % Rosneft deal was "financed" by the bank (INTESSA SanPaolo) that is Partners with Schwarzman's Blackstone GSO Capital
Pretty clever way to hide the $$ trail ...
the shell company that allegedly purchased the 19.5%
Will happen to default on their loan.... and Schwarzman will then take over the 19.5%. Since he (Blackstone /INTESSA ) is the lien holder.....
He is then able to parcel it out as appropriate to "recoup" the money owed by the shell company...
But I am sure that it is contingent upon the sanctions being lifted or allowed to expire....
Maverick McCain & Lindsey Graham better make sure that enough of the centipede's shoes drop to ensure passage of S. 94... which will make the sanctions "law" for 10 years.... & only congress can repeal then......,,,,,,,
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
China acts as a collective mercantile nation. They do not deal in negotiations at a firm or industry level, they act collectively and negotiate as a country.
With NAFTA and the various US & EU trade agreements with the Americas, Africa, Eurasia, Indonesia, etc., there is stressed the pursuance of UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to raise the income of the extremely poor. What actually happens is that the extremely poor, those making less than $1.25 a day, are raised to $1.30 a day and fall off of the warnings, giving a false sense of accomplishment, while the upper income categories of income earners make roughly 70-75% of the money!
But, how China makes out is two fold.
First, they operate like WalMart. They move into a country and undercut any US, EU or in-state supplier. This forces people to lose jobs and become even more dependent on Chinese goods. When China builds a factory in a country, they do not hire locals, they bring in labor from the mainland. Resulting in no economic benefit to the host country. The cheap Chinese goods force the locals to abandon local business and buy Chinese--creating a death spiral to the economies that benefits China in the long run.
Second, China undercuts US & EU trade agreements. These agreements are to bolster workers salaries, provide a safe work environment, demonstrate financial best practices, and protect the environment. All these things cost an emerging country, one that is barely meeting basic needs to its citizens. US companies will sign a 5 year contract and possibly cancel it after a year or two. China comes in and says, "Hey, not only don't we care about the MDG protections, we will sign a 30 year contract with guaranteed increases. Just provide us the raw materials and we'll look the other way."
CHINA NEVER WAS GOING TO SIGN THE TPP!
They would be stupid doing so. Instead, they want all the other countries to be locked into a trade deal, and China will act as a free agent and undercut every contract that exists between TPP partner nations. They already locked in over 2 million square miles of cropland across the globe and have plans on another 1.5 million square miles of croplands.
Regarding the Americas, this year, China is on track to have 50% of the Central & South American countries as their chief trading partner, usurping the United States. In 10 more years, this number is projected to reach 70-75%.
While we sit back and pretend that MDG is working, there are other nations that will operate outside of it, for their own benefit. If China is not on board with TPP, then TPP will just empower China and will be a boon to their economy and power initiatives.
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whole theory out of the water.
Seriously.....without googling....can you name the signatory nations of the TPP?????
The entire fucking point of the TPP was that neither Russia, or China, were part of it.
But.....I've seen the talking point "China would not agree to the TPP" on quite a few websites. Any intrepid DUer can Google it and figure out which websites have said that. And take a shower after.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)They took a course and didn't learn who was a signatory to the TPP but knows all about how it works...
It would be funny if it was not so common.
I gave up trying on this.
Time after time I ran into arguments along the lines of this website says it is bad because it did this or that but when asked for the actual text where the TPP actually did what was claimed it was silence time after time then the same claim made in the next thread.
An almost perfect example of confirmation bias if I ever saw one.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Remove yourself from this particular argument, and understand that the admin provides a search box, that allows you to cite this particular thread.
I drove a prolific poster... A great troll, from this site because I simply kept noting her poorly sourced and insane OPs.
And when she went to dailykos and tried her level of bullshit there I was armed and ready with links from DU. They banned her.
Right now only jpr tolerates her. Understand the ignominy of having only jpr tolerate you.
We play a long game here.
betsuni
(25,618 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
I like how you attack me as some JPRer because I post something that you disagree with.
=
That's very revealing, and troubling at the same time.
Then, there is there a threat that I might be removed from here?
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)They aren't a signatory nation.
The TPP is a bulwark against their currency manipulation.
They WERE NEVER INVITED.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
The reason why is that they would be able to do to TPP nations what they are doing to the Americas and Africa.
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)China was never a signatory nation.
They were never asked.
And as for your last claim, I would simply stop digging.
As I said......any DUer can use the Google to research the websites that claim that China would not have signed the TPP....and take a shower after.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
I'll let you find the nugget.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm
===
There was pressure to get China to "play fare" but at the same time hopes that China would get on board. After this, China adopted a new approach, which made them more self-guided than hoped. There were still desires to get China to sign it later on. It's a shame JSTOR documents are restricted use. Perhaps buy a subscription and search journals directly.
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You mistake common diplomacy for action.
But thank you for yet again proving that China was never a signatory.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
You really need that win, huh?
It's OK if nuance is thrown out the window, as long as the binary win is there.
.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You may call that "binary." I call that a simple fact.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts)
JHan
(10,173 posts)What I find even funnier ( in a dark way ) is that those same nations in the TPP region will look to China, because they're hungry for a deal, but that deal won't include the labor and environmental provisions that every critic of the TPP was complaining about because they weren't tough enough. We've lost whatever competitive edge we would have had under the TPP. 2016 was so incredibly stupid, I still get a headache thinking about it.
bullwinkle428
(20,630 posts)Hillary Clinton.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)came out against the TPP.
I know HRC came out against it.....but do you really think she would not have pushed a similar agreement that blocked the interests of Russia and China? Now we have Trump. How do you think that will work out?
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Got nothing to add -- it was one of the dumber episodes here at DU.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)all along it was a red flag when Trump also came out against the TPP. There was a reason why he would also oppose the TPP, and it had nothing to do with protecting American workers. It was also strange how some of the harshest critics of it didn't even read the document in its entirety before coming out so strongly against it, but they expected everyone to take them at their word over Obama's. Most of the arguments I heard against it were vague and based on speculation.