2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

When Trey fucking Gowdy is the mature one you know you're dealing with some beyond-obsessive psychos.

Time for Hoos to get back to work and stop that work-around Boehner has come up with to push TPP. I guess I can contact my pro-TPP Dem rep and beg him again to change his mind, when this comes up for a vote again

that fucking guy

so it looks like their plan is to:

1. tuck TAA into something noncontroversial/essential (the highway bill, probably!), pass *that* in the house (if GOP goes for it?)
2. pass TPA (if Dems/Tea Party go for it?) solo in the house
3. shoot TAA-less TPA over to the senate and pass it (if Dems go for it without TAA in it?)

there are a lot of question marks in there and it wouldn't be an easy win for them but there *is* a path, so we've got to get back to it.

negotiators in other countries are saying now that if it's not passed by August recess then they're ready to basically suspend negotiations until the second year of the next presidency--so this really is the finish line.

tbf there's absolutely no reason to have any faith that Boehner can get anything past his caucus

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

by the crazies i mean the bachmann/king/gohmert end

I'd guess constituency. If some Dems cave in to White House, that might also give Boehner the numbers he needs

Boehner won't do it if it requires majority Dem + minority GOP tho

what worries me shakey is that the vote last week suggests that the numbers *are* there to pass standalone fast track/TPA--McConnell is now saying he has assurances from some of last week's No vote dems that if he & Boehner "promise" to tuck TAA into something else to ensure it passes, then they'll vote for fast track. fuckin horse trading sycophants.

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

― goole, Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:58 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the breitbart crew have been pushing really hard on the "obamatrade" angle ("house GOP kowtows to their corporate masters & empowers obama with fast track") trying to swing more crazies the right way, but the bulk of the house is part of the corporate GOP & is thus "pro-trade."

we're trying to hit the people who voted wrong pretty hard too.

huh yeah that's bad news

To change subjects for a sec: Benghazi Committee chair Drago Malefoy has officially turned himself into Ken Starr, hoovering any evidence that will impugn a Clinton during an election year.

I am shocked

lol malefoy

goddammit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/business/house-sends-trade-bill-back-to-senate-in-bid-to-outflank-foes.html?_r=0

Senate Democrats will also have to gamble that House Democrats will not again vote against the measure when it comes across the Rotunda.

ugh there's no way this happens, if they vote yes on TAA in the africa bill in the senate the house dems are never gonna shoot their feet and vote against it at that point, that'd be entirely pointless

we have to kill it in the senate, which is a much scarier and less plausible prospect.

fuck

h00s, i have a question about ISDS -- who gives the organization any authority to fine countries? is it just that the countries involved in the trade bill are voluntarily placing themselves under ISDS authority? putting aside why the US would be okay with that when we're already so reticent to sign onto any UN obligations lest we risk our sovereignty, why would any of the other countries want this?

we have to kill it in the senate, which is a much scarier and less plausible prospect.

yeah I have much less faith in my senators. well one of them anyway.

They also want to make sure that Mr. Boehner will bring up that measure once the Senate is done with it — most likely at the end of next week. Mr. Obama and Democrats aligned with him on trade have to support Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner, basically saying, “Trust us that we trust them.”

lol riiiight

who gives the organization any authority to fine countries? is it just that the countries involved in the trade bill are voluntarily placing themselves under ISDS authority? putting aside why the US would be okay with that when we're already so reticent to sign onto any UN obligations lest we risk our sovereignty, why would any of the other countries want this?

― Mordy, Thursday, June 18, 2015 6:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah by signing onto the agreement the countries are giving the arbitration tribunals the right to fine based on any violation of rules contained in the agreement.

Generally speaking, negotiators in other countries begrudgingly agree to it as 'the cost of doing business' with the multinational (American) companies pushing for the deal. In a lot of my protest actions around tourist traps here in DC I've been approached by people from lots of other TPP countries who are excited to see American opposition because "everyone in our country is against this, and the secret courts."

my favorite detail about the ISDS process is that the tribunals who make the decisions literally come from the same pool of corporate lawyers arguing on behalf of the multinationals--so they could come in to work monday, argue a case for philip morris, clock out, then come in the next day and be 1/3rd of the tribunal on a different philip morris case.

I just can't understand why the US govt would be willing to hand over some of its sovereignty to an arbitration tribunal. Are the corporations bullying Obama into this? Or is the idea that without the tribunal there won't be any way of enforcing the trade agreements? (In which case isn't the better way to ensure compliance to tie the applicability of the treaty itself to its adherence?) Also, who gets the fine money?

Oh, I see. So the individual corporation would get it. Seems like a terrible idea to have corporations enforcing the details of a multinational treaty. They aren't even parties to it!

Are the corporations bullying Obama into this? Or is the idea that without the tribunal there won't be any way of enforcing the trade agreements? (In which case isn't the better way to ensure compliance to tie the applicability of the treaty itself to its adherence?)

yeah its sold as an enforcement mechanism. it's theoretically possible for (say) Barclays to take the US to court over Dodd-Frank, and no one really explains *why* that won't happen when Obama mocks that idea as ridiculous, except for this kind of unspoken notion that the international capital that plays nice together helps everybody win.

why, how could anybody honestly mistrust the interests of international capital, that's just silly

It just seems like we manage to have enforcement mechanisms on every other treaty we sign without giving open season to every corporation's legal team to start draining the capital of every signatory to TPP.

well i'd kinda argue that draining the capital of pacific rim signatories to make room for american capital is what the agreement (and 'free trade' generally) is *for*

though tbf realistically ISDS isn't really a big part of that plan in terms of dollars--example of outrageous settlements abound, but the money is really used as leverage to change laws in the corps' favor rather than, say, an explicit bleedout of welfare programs overlapping with corporate interests. ISDS is just a particularly egregious part of it.

what are the enforcement mechanisms in NATO?

couldn't tell you tbh

Nukes iirc

the Second Amendment

good news:

Trade-friendly Senate Democrats were skeptical about moving "fast track" separate from the renewal TAA, a worker assistance program. Fourteen Senate Democrats supported the two measures last month when they were packaged together into one vote.

Sen. Patty Murray, who brokered a deal to get Democratic support on the trade package last month, said she was "hopeful for a path forward that includes TAA and TPA. We'll see where it is."

Sen. Ben Cardin said his position hasn't changed. "I want it all together. I've said that before."

Sen. Bill Nelson, a strong supporter of the trade package, said he thought moving separate votes on TPA and TAA was a viable option, but wasn't sure how fellow trade-supportive Democrats would consider the votes. "To be determined on the rest of them, but I think at the end of the day we're going to pass them."

ugh Bill Nelson

I called his office last week before the vote.

lol boehner

"I'd describe most of what's gone on in last three weeks as close to bizarre and I don't think I've learned anything from it," he said.

"I'd describe most of what's gone on in last three weeks thirty years as close to bizarre and I don't think I've learned anything from it," he said.

Mere days after Hillary called on Congress to slow down the trade package, Bill went on the Daily Show to offer an unabashedly pro-trade argument: "On balance, the countries that we have trade agreements with, we tend to have a balance of trade, much more than, let's say with China."

Union leaders groaned: "After Hillary toggled to the left to appease labor unions, they said, Bill Clinton's television appearance looked like an attempt to assuage corporate elites," POLITICO's Annie Karni writes. "'It's too cute by half,'" fumed one labor leader, who declined to comment because their union has yet to make an endorsement in the presidential contest."

I had not noticed the specifics on that bad House vote earlier--The House vote was 218-208, with 28 Democrats voting for it.

lol that boehner quote sounds like jk simmons in burn after reading

https://youtu.be/SlA9hmrC8DU

so TPP is a-go?

well today was the cloture vote--but the path is clear.

last ditch brake effort by the sponsors of the Africa bill (AGOA) that they tied TAA to--they'd been threatening that if TPA passed cloture, they'd vote against AGOA/TAA themselves. they're hoping that the threat of killing TAA is enough to persuade Dem Senators to vote no on TPA.

we'll see. i have my doubts, honestly.

is it wrong to assume that the current event news frenzy is giving these guys cover to do nefarious shit or are the opponents to tpp memories longer than that and the uppance will come later? or is there no comeuppance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEbjpVnLv2c

after Fast Track, we shift our footing to fight on the vote TPP directly--but the truth is that will probably be an ineffectual fight. this is the one where we had the best shot at winning.

are the opponents to tpp memories longer than that and the uppance will come later? or is there no comeuppance?

― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Tuesday, June 23, 2015 6:14 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's talk about primarying people who voted wrong, but nobody in our coalition is willing to go on record saying they'll use this as a test on, say, presidential endorsements.

'is it wrong to assume that the current event news frenzy is giving these guys cover to do nefarious shit'

i think it's a mistake to think that tpp was going to get a groundswell of opposition under the most ideal news circumstances, after all americans tend not to pay a lot of attention to trade bills

I like to think once people hear about the details in this turd they'll turn against it but yeah that presumes people actually pay attention =\

they should have tied US citizen consumer/education/medical debt liquidation to passage of this bill but that would be unrealistic. better to practice voodoo