2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen HRC is elected, will the president respect her personal anti-TPP pledge...
...and withdraw the treaty from consideration?
China's economy is now in decline, so there's no longer any real rush to get something like TPP in place.
And the next Democratic president should be given the chance to create a trade deal that doesn't pit workers against each other.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)It will be repudiated when she is elected.
Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)After the convention.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It would be undemocratic for the president to try to force the treaty through in a lame-duck session.
He needs to let the ACA be his legacy, not a massive giveaway.
ACA is good for the people. TPP is only good for billionaires.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)be a mandate to scrap the TPP?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Do you actually support TPP? If so, why?
President Obama's great achievement is the ACA. It has helped millions. TPP can't help the vast majority of the people who vote Democratic.
He should let his legacy be healthcare...not push for it to be a giveaway to corporations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as such your (economic-primacy) solutions are largely ineffective in resolving my main concerns.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I never did believe that. I don't even believe(nor does anyone on the left that I've ever heard of)that race is LESS important than economics and class.
What I actually think is that race and class are BOTH vitally important and that both must be addressed in order for either to be fully addressed.
I don't think it's possible to end economic injustice without confronting institutional and grassroots racism, and I don't think it's possible to end grassroots white backlash thinking without addressing economic injustice.
And I have never supported colorblind approaches to economic justice OR argued that anyone should put the fight against institutional racism on the backburner in the name of achieving economic justice.
If I disagreed with you about police racism, I wouldn't have joined the first Black Lives Matter march that happened in a place where I was physically present(San Francisco, when BLM was just getting started).
We disagreed on our choice of presidential candidates. How can I convince you that I never disagreed with you on race and that I stand with you on the need to fight racism? That I truly am on your side?
Are you always going to assume I'm trying to pull a fast one on you?
Are you going to distrust me forever just because I supported Bernie?
What do you need to hear from me in order to at least consider giving me the benefit of the doubt, rather than treating me as if I am trying to trick you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think you really believe that you hold economic justice and social justice on equal footing; but, the reality is they are not ... for any of us - that which affects us most directly is, the issue which we hold in primary importance. For me, as a Black man, it's social justice because my life experience informs me that no matter how much economic equality I achieve, I will still face social inequality and that social inequality hinders my economic horizons. For you, it's economic justice because, as a white man. any primary focus on/advances in social justice, does nothing to affect your economic horizons (in fact, it can be argued that society's achievement of social justice works to your disadvantage, as you face level-fielded competition, you previously had not faced).
And, that is fine ... the best we can do is come together to support each other's primary concern ... I will support your efforts in achieving economic parity (except where they conflict with my social pursuits), as it will surely trickle down to me; and, you can partner with me in my pursuit of social equality, as a fairer society is a happier society.
But let's not fool/deceive ourselves into believing that our interests are the same, with the same priority sought. They are not.
So, the short answer to your question is a recognition and acknowledgement of the above.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nor would I ever say that racism affects you less than economic issues.
It's just that I don't see a conflict between fighting racism and working for economic justice.
I know you and all other people of color still face social inequality-and that, due to racism you will always have it harder than me in many, many ways. As a person of the left, I want social inequality to end just as much as you do, even though it doesn't affect me in the way it does you.
I know I have undoubtedly benefited from the existence of racism. That fact sickens me to the core. I didn't create racism, but accept that it will always be my responsibility to help fight it, even if that might, in theory, go against my personal self-interest.
And I don't support economic justice because I'm a white man(it's kind of horrifying to me that you seem to think I would support it for that reason). I support economic justice because I think it is a crucial part of creating the just world we all need and deserve. And because I think economic justice has to be achieved if social justice is to be achieved and preserved from future outbreaks of backlash politics.
Any economic justice program created in this century would have to compensate for and address the historic effects of bigotry. I'm not sure how, in the post-1964 era, it would even be possible to set up any form of economic justice policies that excluded people of color(that happened in the New Deal era, obviously and shamefully, but that was because of the power of the Southern committee chairmen in the House and Senate and the effects of the filibuster), but I support whatever measures are needed to make sure such exclusion doesn't happen.
(BTW, I was thinking of starting a thread in the AA group asking for suggestions of how to make sure economic justice policies would always be racially inclusive. Would you object to my doing that? My participation would just be posting the OP and then reading the suggestions).
We are not identical, and I agree that we may not have the same interests in theory(whatever that may mean). But I will never work for anything that I know to be damaging to you or to any other person of color. I'm just one person, and I don't think I personally have the power to betray you even if I wished to. And my intent is to learn.
I'm on your side.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)happens to agree in full with every single item on the candidate's platform or in the candidate's speeches.
It means the voter has chosen the "good enough" candidate or the "better than" candidate or the "not as bad as" candidate.
It doesn't imply anything about a mandate on each and every one of the candidate's positions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to, use that falsely claimed "mandate" frame to, support future criticism.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)she will answer to the people who sign the big checks. I would love to be wrong.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)due to the 'carve-out' on tobacco companies using ISDS like they do now. Orrin Hatch (R- Big Pharma) is mad too.
Obama has lost support he had for fast track and hasn't gained any that I have seen. I suppose the frantic isolationism of Trump and the backlash caused by Brexit may provide some help for TPP but I doubt it will be enough.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)TPP was basically negotiated by the Bush Administration. No Democratic president should push for the passage of anything that originated with THAT lot.
He should let the beginnings of universal healthcare be his legacy. That was to the good of all. TPP wouldn't be.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)TPP is dead.
DISCLAIMER: I stand in full support of TPP and am merely giving the reality.
TheFarseer
(9,328 posts)I cannot fathom why any normal person would so please indulge me.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)If he wants to send TPP to Congress for a vote, he will do it regardless of whether HRC ran against it. The same goes for the lame duck appointment of Merrick Garland and any other bills he sees fit to sign during the lame duck period.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It serves no purpose to keep trying to get TPP ratified. It had its chance, now it's too late.
LAS14
(13,792 posts)he was elected for 8 years. Where did this idea come from that somehow a sitting president should step off the stage before Jan 20?
And I certainly agree with others that just because someone votes for a candidate does not mean that they agree with the candidate's every position. There is no "mandate".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that a majority of the electorate believe the Democratic solutions are better than the gop's solutions.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)...it's Hillary's anti-TPP stance. There's no way she doesn't back off on that as soon as she's elected, or that it was anything other than politically expedient. And no this doesn't make her any different than any person who ever campaigned for and then won the Presidency. But of all the pledges she's made and will continue to make there's none that stands less of a chance of being even remotely sincere than Hillary being anti-free trade agreement and anti-TPP.
Feel free to mark this post and come back to me within the first year of her being in office if I'm wrong, but I don't anticipate hearing from anyone on this.
