I am not liking Obama very much these days

[Stinky The Clown]

It started when he ignored single payer.

Today it is TPP.

Neither of those will have much impact on my life, but I care a lot about those who will follow me. They will be diminished to some real but as yet unknown degrees by the lack of single payer and the lack of good paying middle class jobs.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. These are definitely not his highest achievements.

[hay rick]

17. Or maybe I'm just not a fan of his policies. nt

[customerserviceguy]

35. I can't believe the post above this one of yours

was jury-voted to be hidden. It proves that nobody can say anything honest around here.

[dreamnightwind]

45. Wow, I can't believe it either

Whether you agree with it or not, it should not be censured. Nothing mean about it, the poster gave his opinion.

[geek tragedy]

49. Racism should be hidden.

Plenty of other places on the Internet where angry old white people are allowed to race-bait the President. This is thankfully not one of them (yet).

[haikugal]

127. Wow....off the rails. nt

Incredible.

[geek tragedy]

129. hey, if you think angry white people should be allowed to use Obama's race

as a means to insult him, there's a great website for you:

www.discussionist.com

[haikugal]

133. Are you one of Cornel Wests critics?

Your comments are truly off the wall and inaccurate. There was no racist post to hide. Wild eyed accusations and escalating language is all I see and it's all coming from you. Imagine that!

[geek tragedy]

134. Cornel West is the socialist Donald Trump.

You have a very peculiar definition of racism.

Toodles

[haikugal]

139. Back at ya....

By the definition I read of a wild, off the tracks Dr West I'd say you and he have a lot in common. Your accusations are argumentative and untrue...wild.

I know racism when I see it, hear it and feel it. You aren't calling out racism in a hidden post. You're doing something entirely different.

Bye....

[Spazito]

140. And the jury results on your post is as follows:

On Thu Jun 25, 2015, 07:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Racism should be hidden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6900529

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Indeed it should. So should bigoted comments like this. Just because someone is a white male does not make them your enemy, Geek.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jun 25, 2015, 07:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh FFS what ridiculous alert
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disruptive personal attack. Regardless of whether the target of the insult had a post hidden, this adds nothing to a civil or productive DU discussion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Accusation of racism is wrong and should be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't meet the criteria for hiding it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I voted to leave it alone.

[geek tragedy]

142. Funny thing is, same people think that the Obama comment wasn't racist.

Fortunately, jury saw through such antics.

[Spazito]

143. Yep, exactly n/t

[cui bono]

157. Funnier yet, some people think it was.

But then there are people who think that if you agree with one thing Rand Paul says you are a Libertarian. So there's that.

[geek tragedy]

47. It was racist and should have been 7-0

Boo hoo. Racists shouldn't feel free to be honest here.

[peacebird]

57. The post was NOT racist

"She should be neither penalized or rewarded for her gender. True gender equality means applying the same standard to all candidates without regard to sex."

There is nothing RACIST about that.

[geek tragedy]

63. Um, the racist part was saying Obama was nothing more than

a black president.

[cui bono]

114. Except the poster never said that.

They said his highest achievement was becoming the first black president, which is a great achievement. His policies though, are not achievements if you have a Democratic Party mindset. His policies are moderate Republican, just like he says. Some are worse than that, like expanding spying on Americans and the TPP.

[truebluegreen]

151. ^Exactly this^ nt

[hifiguy]

154. 100% correct.

[peacebird]

56. Me either, nothing said there was in any way hide worthy! Criticize HRC, get hidden?

[BeeBee]

105. Did you even read the post?

"His highest achievement was his first- becoming the first black president." Definitely racist and and definitely hide-worthy.

[bvar22]

132. Was it racist in 2008 when the country was celebrating

...the "historic" election of first Black President? IT went on for days.

Was it racist when ALL the TV Stations called it a major step forward for Black People in 2008?

Is ANY mention of a person's color "racist".....or just those you don't like?

[BeeBee]

138. None of the above, thanks.

It was not racist to celebrate the first black president - I was right there celebrating along with everyone else. But that's not what the poster said. The poster said "His highest achievement was his first- becoming the first black president" discounting everything else he has done. And yes, I believe that remark to be racist.

[cui bono]

156. Did YOU even read the post?

Not racist in the least, just critical.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6903390

[LanternWaste]

60. Confusing proof and evidence is indicative of bias.

Confusing proof and evidence is indicative of bias.

[haikugal]

126. Very bad hide. nt

[SamKnause]

55. I think it is foul that your post was hidden.

The truth has no place in many discussions on this site.

[geek tragedy]

65. People who feel compelled to use the president's race

as a means to insult him do not belong here. Plenty of sites full of angry white people who hate Obama where that's allowed.

[SamKnause]

68. There was nothing racist

about that post.

Black people have admitted they voted for President Obama

solely based on his race.

Are you aware of this ???

People have stated they will vote for Hillary because she is a woman.

I find neither reason to be valid to vote for a candidate.

Take your angry white crap and peddle it elsewhere.

[geek tragedy]

72. Keep on digging. nt

[Solomon]

97. yep, he's digging a big ole hole

Same right wing crap about black people voting for Obama because he's black. I'm black and Obama is the first black candidate for president I've ever voted for. Of course all the rest of them were white but they were DEMOCRATS. Black people vote for DEMOCRATS, not because some one is black.

Really boils me over when a white person makes the ridiculous charge that we only vote for black candidates. We've been voting white our whole lives.

[geek tragedy]

98. I expect people to start paraphrasing Geraldine Ferraro pretty soon nt

[hifiguy]

113. I noticed you deleted your post FALSELY accusing another of racism.

People who live in glass houses.....

[geek tragedy]

115. that post was not inaccurate.

but, the prospects for a retaliatory alert were certainly in the air after mine succeeded.

I repeat: people who feel compelled to use the president's race to insult him should find a different message board. There are plenty of message boards where angry white people who hate Obama are allowed to invoke his race in order to insult him.

This includes the crowd who insist that "black people voted for him because he was black," "he only won because he was black," as well as "the only thing he's accomplished is being black."

If people find themselves hating the president so much that they start typing up a message going down the blackety black black route as a means of insulting him, they should cut and paste and post that at Discussionist or the Yahoo! comments section where it belongs.

And, no, being ostensibly on the left does not mean a person is not a racist.

I know a lot of people think that white populist 'progressives' who hate the president should get a free pass in using racial attacks on him. But I have a generally low opinion of such folks and discount their opinions on all matters.

[Sheepshank]

116. Perhpas you should have kept reading the thread? n/t

[Peregrine Took]

2. Never was really high on him

but now I can't stand him. He is a real odd duck.

I hope, after he leaves office, someone writes a really definitive biography on him, like the Caro ones on LBJ. Something different there - in his psyche, maybe then we will get a handle on the real Barack Obama.

[geek tragedy]

12. Maybe you can collaborate with Bill Frist

Just because you hate someone doesn't mean they have psychological problems.

Kind of a gutterball comment to use allegations of mental illness as part of hate expressions.

[snagglepuss]

23. Exaggerate much? PT said nothing about mental issues. He

said Obama was an odd duck with a psyche not easy to understand. How do arrive arrive at that being a gutterball remark? Who isn't perplexed by him after hearing him on the stump? It's like two different people.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. "when we saw that Gemini moon in his chart"

I love the smell of woo in the morning.

[TheKentuckian]

159. Weird hide though. Is it some "code" or just zodiac crap?

I don't follow.

[awoke_in_2003]

161. I can't see why it was hidden...

the juries can be weird sometimes.

[onehandle]

3. Ralph Nader 2008!

Probably?

[cascadiance]

4. I saw this coming when he made Rahm Emmanuel his chief of staff at the beginnning...

That was a good indicator of the kind of stuff we'd see down the road.

[hifiguy]

16. Geithner was the real tipoff.

Put one of the chief arsonists and his mentor Summers in top economic positions. It was then abundantly clear that the banks would be rescued and the people left to drown on their own.

[Art_from_Ark]

52. I think the tip-off was before that

when he praised Ronald Reagan during the first campaign. And that was reinforced a few years later when he likened himself to an '80s republican.

[truebluegreen]

153. I agree: it was Geithner, and Summers.

Rahm could have been a good attack dog if pointed in the right direction--certainly many spun it that way at the time--but Geithner, Summers, Holder; Rick Warren at the inaugural for Dog's sake...ugh.

[moonbeam23]

25. Yup!

When was that...day fucking 2? i remember throwing a slipper at the tv when i heard that announcement...

[whathehell]

5. Me either..

for those reasons and a couple of others:

His refusal to honor his campaign promises to "re-negotiate NAFTA" and his

sellout of Organized Labor who supported him with cash, activists and votes.

Let's not get fooled again.

[geek tragedy]

11. TPP is a renegotiation of NAFTA.

Mexico and Canada are part of it.

Be careful what you wish for.

[whathehell]

41. Yes. Renegotiated to make it even more destructive.

I don't think that's what the voters had in mind.

[Rex]

84. The GOP was all in favor of the TPP, so now we are all happy with the GOP?

The goalposts here sure do move around a lot. Dems in Congress were almost totally against the TPP...but Obama is for it, so we are now friends with the GOP.

Just great.

[geek tragedy]

88. I think the TPP is probably going to be a bad thing, but I think the harm is being

exaggerated greatly.

End of the middle class, comparisons to the Third Reich, etc etc.

A lot of the provisions being decried are already in existing agreements between member countries, and in some cases the TPP could be an improvement over those agreements.

TPA passed, and the planet kept on spinning.

[Rex]

89. The planet's spin has nothing to do with corporations having ruling power over nations.

I still say the POTUS is planning on killing it right there on his desk. That he will do something completely unexpected.

[geek tragedy]

90. No, he wanted this. Now he negotiates with the other 13 countries and tries to seal the deal.

I think he's done an absolutely miserable job in making his own case for this. I don't agree that it's a good policy, but there are arguments for it (mainly limiting China's ability to set the terms of trade in the Pacific--their track record on environmental and labor protections is pretty clear)

[Rex]

91. That is part of what I fear, it will tie our hands with corporate legal hocus pocus

while China makes out like a king - still free to break every copyright law in existence. I see this deal helping China, not hurting China. And if we think countries are going to buckle down and fight China...we have never done it, even when we shake the sabers of war at them. Still our best buds in trade, how will we deal with them after the TPP passes?

[geek tragedy]

94. The hypothesis is that if this didn't pass, the Chinese sphere of influence would grow

and these countries (e.g. Vietnam, Malaysia) would start becoming Ukraine to China's Russia.

China, not the US, would drive the terms for trade in the Pacific.

We don't have a trade agreement with China, other than WTO.

[Rex]

96. And the WTO gives China 'most favored nation' with America, the TPP should be a monkey wrench.

The TPP SHOULD radically alter that relationship...however going by history, it won't. I would LOVE to see a treaty enacted that would finally stop China from pirating everything from other countries. However, what will we do if China decides to call in our debt owed? They still own a huge chunk of American debt.

If the TPP benefits any signatories labor force, I will be shocked but happy for them.

[babylonsister]

6. Please! I'm not happy about TPP but haven't discussed it

because I don't know enough about it.

Single payer? You just want a thread that goes places.

Did he single-handedly shoot down single-payer? I don't think so. Disingenuous at best. But fun to see you again!

[awoke_in_2003]

36. The whole party should have been pushing for it

so they could have compromised with public option. Instead, they started the haggling with PO. If you want to sell something for $150 you start at $200 and work from there. Saying that, they weren't operating in good faith. Regardless of what they said, they wanted the mandate. The insurance industry bribed enough politicians to make it so.

[Rex]

92. The GOP loves the TPP, that should be a red flag imo.

They HATED the ACA and still do, so it must be a golden chalice. Rule of thumb for me, if the GOP likes it - examine it in detail and be wary. If they hate it...must be good for society, since in general the GOP hates humans with a passion.

[avebury]

149. Very few people know that much about TPP because they

chose to keep it totally in the dark. That right there is a tipoff that it was not going to be a good deal for this country. If there was nothing wrong with it, it would have been handled in a transparent manner. Once it becomes public it would be interesting to see if it can pass Constitutional muster in the courts.

TPP smacks of the kind of legislation that Oklahoma passes all the time, except the Oklahoma State Legislature doesn't hide what they are doing.

[seveneyes]

8. Return of the vampire

[Skinner]

9. He ignored single payer way back when he started running for president in 2007.

So apparently "these days" means the last eight years or so.

Obamacare may not have much impact on your life, but for many people it has been a vast improvement over what came before. Fortunately they didn't have to choose between all or nothing, because they almost certainly would have gotten nothing.

[Rex]

85. The GOP loves them some TPP, so now we do to!?

No thanks, I never trust the GOP on anything. Most Dems voted against it in Congress...but Obama is for it, so we are for it?

No thanks, not me...it is poison for the labor force and these same GOPers that 'love' the POTUS now...will go right back to trying to destroy the ACA.

I can't believe he is working with the GOP on a horrible give away to Wall Street.

[FlatBaroque]

10. It will have an almost immediate, direct and profound impact on most people's lives

it will meet many of the objectives of SOPA, it will enable generics to be kept off the market, it will prevent GMO food labeling.

[jtuck004]

24. People don't need to know what's in their Soylent Green. Just eat it.

Besides, it's a vast improvement. Otherwise you would have had nothing...

And that takes care of at least one of those nagging problems from the climate thingy.

[hifiguy]

13. The familiar strains of

Big Bu$ine$$ über alles. The players change but the tune never does.

[geek tragedy]

14. Lol. People still whining that the single payer unicorn

didn't materialize.

Bernie Sanders said there weren't ten votes in the Senate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

Is he part of Team Antichrist now too.

[raindaddy]

29. I was more concerned with his secret negotiations with the big drug companies..

insuring that our seniors would continue to be price gouged on their medical prescriptions..

But hey old people without a lot of money vs big Pharma with billions to spend, what are you going to do.

[geek tragedy]

30. That's our political system.

Big pharm and the insurance companies torpedoed health care reform in 1994.

[raindaddy]

32. I see you have a Bernie banner...

Are you saying that after campaigning on transparency Bernie is the kind of politician that would turn around and guarantee pharmaceutical companies grossly inflated prices at the expense of the public? Because, "that's our political system?"

[geek tragedy]

67. Bernie lives in the real world.

That said, his election would change the system. The real question is whether he wins.

[raindaddy]

75. So as president Bernie wouldn't engage in corrupt politics?

I guess many of us weren't living in the "real world" when we expected the same from President Obama.

[geek tragedy]

76. To be blunt, Bernie doesn't win unless there's a dramatic upheaval in American politics.

If Bernie can't change the system, he doesn't win.

Obama's always been a work within the system guy with a very unsentimental view of power.

[raindaddy]

82. The fact is the system is based on a sum total of the actions..

Of the people we elect to represent us. So if siding with corporations at the expense of the people he claimed to represent is the system that Obama chose to operate within even though he promised to change that system then he becomes as corrupt as the system.

You suggest he's simply being pragmatic, how is that any different than a used car salesman lying about the quality of the cars he's selling and justifying it by telling himself that he's opperating within the culture of the used car business?

[geek tragedy]

87. you're making the legislation an either-or, if some corporation benefits or is involved

in its drafting in any way, then it's obviously evil and corrupt and hostile to all human beings everywhere. If Obama works with potential opponents to make passage of a bill possible, then obviously he hates America and the people living in it.

that's not how things work in the real world.

Millions of people have coverage, thousands are alive instead of dead because of Obama's work on the ACA. And the US economy from top to bottom is much stronger, and the federal government's finances are much more solid.

That's what he cares about.

Single payer was not going to happen in 2009. Period. End of discussion. It's delusional to pretend otherwise.

So, what was going to pass was going to be a compromise that kept the insurance companies, and the private hospitals, and the pharmaceutical companies in place.

[raindaddy]

93. Give me a break! I don't believe you believe what you're saying!

How in any stretch of the imagination is protecting a corporation's right to sell an essential product for $130 that costs them 80 cents to to the elderly person on a fixed income not the definition of corrupt?

If you add in the fact that they met in secret and tried to hide it from the public let's aid hypocritical and dishonest to the list as well.

So this president found within himself the passion and fortitude to twist arms and lobby congress to fast track the TPP, yet when it came to lowering healthcare costs for seniors instead of twisting arms and hard nosed negotiation he secretly guaranteed the obscene markups for the pharmaceutical industry? And that's how things work in your "real world" ?

[geek tragedy]

95. Were you paying attention in 1994?

Big Pharm and Big Ins killed Clinton's health care reform. Lobbying, huge amounts of money spent advertising, fear-mongering etc.

ACA barely squeaked by as it was--lots of defections from Blue Dogs in the House, plus LIEberman, Nelson, etc in the Senate.

Obama's lobbying in Congress for the TPP was a complete failure--he lost votes every time he tried to persuade Democrats to vote for it.

[raindaddy]

100. You're simply making excuses...

There is absolutely no excuse for not using the public forum to accentuate the obscene drug mark-ups that are part of the reason health care costs in this country are still so high. Then make the negotiations public along with opening the doors to cheaper Canadian and other foreign manufactures..That's how you change a corrupt system.

But Obama's interest was obviously directed at protecting the drug corporations profits... His actions made it beyond obvious.
This is how a gullible naive public plays a roll in the corrupt system.. Buying into 12 dimensional chess, the Republicans made him do it, etc.. Or when it comes to pushing corporate wet dreams the Executive Branch seems to carry a big stick but when it comes to protecting the interests of the poor and middle class, Obama's just one man against big bad corporations... Go back to work/sleep everyone, he's doing all that he can do..

[geek tragedy]

111. how much high-stakes legislation have you gotten passed in a legislative body? nt

[raindaddy]

117. This is just all too complex for the general. public to understand, right?

Single payer the model the rest of the civilized world uses might've been considered high stakes legislation.. But this is warmed over Romney care that made sure the insurance companies and the drug company profits were taken care of...In the case of the drug companies protected.

I'm wondering how far the "new" Democrats would've gotten with real high stakes legislation like abolishing Jim Crow...

[geek tragedy]

119. The general public still doesn't understand how the ACA, or our health system, works nt

[raindaddy]

122. They also don't understand how poorly they're being represented

[Rilgin]

123. Factually Incorrect

What you wrote is your assumption of what happened in Clinton's term but if you actually research it you will find something different. That comes from starting from a point of view of what you think happened. Big insurance did not kill Clinton's health care reform attempt. Small insurance companies were against it because they would have been put out of business. The Harry and Louise ads were from the small insurance lobbying group. However, the big insurers would be fine either way, whether the Clinton plan passed or failed.

The large insurance companies like Cigna signed on and in fact were financial backers of Clinton when he ran for president because his plan like the ACA also enshrined private insurance companies as the front door to the health care market. Although, being Clintons, they pretended to meet with the world after election regarding what bill should be passed, coincidently it was the same bill that everyone knew he would support before he was elected.

The involvement of Big Pharma I actually do not remember. The real reason it failed is because the plan was another plan designed from the mushy middle. It had no support from the right or left side of the political spectrum. It was truly uninspiring and its defeat was not really a surprise to those who knew where it came from. The Clinton plan was similar to a plan called the Aspen Plan and was also similar to a plan that was earlier on the California ballot and rejected by voters.

[geek tragedy]

124. HIAA wasn't the mom and pop insurance association.

It was the 600 lb gorilla in the room.

Big pharm opposed HillaryCare because, well, we all know their arguments by heart, stifling innovation, blah blah blah.

The AMA also opposed HillaryCare.

Once the industry was able to whip up fear, the Republicans became emboldened and stonewalled.

[Rilgin]

160. Big Insurance

Just a question. How many of the "Big 5" Insurance companies are part of HIAA and when did they leave? HIAA represents primarily the smaller insurance companies who would have been put out of business by the Clinton Plan. Cigna left before the election and the rest just after the election. They were not behind HIAA's opposition and interdependently supported Clinton. The HIAA members are not "mom and pops" but they are smaller insurance companies.

The Big Insurance Companies provided monetary support for Bill Clinton during his campaign and were not the active opponents of Clinton's plan as you have submitted. Even though there was a "task force" run by HRC about the shape of health insurance reform, it was a sham. I knew before the election what the Clinton plan was and its effects which were to institutionalize corporate big insurers as the gate keepers similar to the ACA. The real travesty of the time was the fraudulent nature of this "Task Force". Any involved person (including the big insurers) knew what the Clintons supported before the election. The task force was pure political theater and somewhat disgusting.

You are quite right that the smaller companies would probably have been driven out of business and they opposed both Clinton and the bill. However, that is different than saying Big Insurance was against it.

The Clinton plan failed for a lot of reasons but primarily because no one was deeply for it on the left or right and there were significant sectors in opposition (the small insurers, Pharma). However,the big insurance companies who dominate the insurance industry were not the main opponents. They were taken care of in the plan as they have been taken care of in the ACA. At the time, health care was a big issue and everyone knew something had to be done and thought it was coming. The big insurers were bought off either directly or indirectly. Thus they won whether the Clinton plan won or lost.

[geek tragedy]

162. HIAA still represented 1/3 of the market and was opposed to any reform or limits

on profitability. It was the health care version of the NFIB or Chamber of Commerce.

Of course, by 2008 they all had gotten the band back together with AHIP.

If HIAA was in a position to blow things up, AHIP was that much more of an obstacle.

In retrospect, the problem with HillaryCare was that the situation wasn't desperate enough for comprehensive reform. "There is no health care crisis." Ugh.

[raindaddy]

137. Good to known and it totally makes sense ...

Thanks for the history lesson!

[Cha]

42. "Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance" What!? Will they listen to Sanders?!!

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

President Obama went for what he could get and it barely squeaked by.. and hopefully SCOTUS won't gut it.

[groundloop]

19. He and I are in agreement on about 90% of issues

I never expected that he'd be 100% perfect in my eyes, but overall I'd say he's still damned good.

Unfortunately he's wrong on TPP.

(And as far as single payer vs. what we got - single payer never had a chance in the Senate and ACA was a significant improvement over the way it was).

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. It's a shame he didn't put as much effort into single payer as he did TPP. n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. It's a shame people are still living in a fantasy world

where single payer had a chance of passing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

He would have been an idiot to go all-out for single payer.

[Cha]

43. Yes, he would have.. too bad the fantasy of "single payer" trumps reality for those bashing the

President over it. The OP isn't the only one on DU who insists on this illusion.

[treestar]

66. that remark might make sense about the public option

but single payer was never going to pass.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Agreed. Lately my typos come in phrases. Sorry 'bout that.

[PowerToThePeople]

22. You never loved him!

[glinda]

27. I have no longer

much respect for him. The environment....this means Arctic and TPP and other things.

[Pharaoh]

28. He's playing 12 dimensional chess,

just you watch........

[tech3149]

31. I'm surprised more people who post here don't have a more realistic understanding of him

Back during his first primary there was an article in either Counterpunch or Consortiumnews that used quotes from his books that fairly well defined his position with regard to economics.
It left little doubt that he was a true believer in free market unfettered capitalism. Add to that all the appointments after election that couldn't see Wall Street in a bad light if they killed their dog in front of them.

[dorkzilla]

33. I love Obama the person, but Obama the President has been pissing me off

Although I did hear some pundit or another on WNYC yesterday say he thinks Obama really believes TPP is going to be good for America. I dunno if thats accurate, but I dont want to believe he'd intentionally do something so underhanded, something that will virtually guarantee his legacy will be shit from both sides of the aisle. It is difficult for me to reconcile the two Obamas sometimes.

I've wanted to shake him and say "Dude, why would you do something the GOP is so gung ho for? WAKE UP, STUPID!" (to quote Jean Shepherd).

[Cha]

44. I love the President. He's earned my trust and respect.

[dorkzilla]

59. I respect him too, and I trust that he thinks he’s doing what’s best

But I feel like the people around him sometimes give him AWFUL advice. When he went to the caucus to ask them to vote for the TPP and refused to take questions, that’s where I got really confused and pissed off. What a thing to do - seems so out of character for such a reasonable, well-thought fellow.

Like I said, I love Obama the person. I know I’m never going to agree with a politician on everything.

[LondonReign2]

99. I agree, I think he does believe it is going to be good for America

The problem is, that is the view one has when one's economic policies are 1980's mainstream Republican.

[AngryDem001]

37. I remember in 2008-2009 we had a supermajority

in both houses. For a while it looked like we were going to get a public option for the ACA.

But then, for some reason, in the words of Nancy Pelosi: "We just did not have the votes" for a public option.

Then in 2010, we handed the controls right back to the 'pukes.

[questionseverything]

40. public option passed the house

it did not have 60 votes for closure in the senate

when progressives started talking about using the nuclear option in the senate ,were only 50 votes were needed , the senate presented the aca as we have it now

[AngryDem001]

121. Oh Jeez.

My memory is terrible!

[truebluegreen]

155. Some of us progressives were talking about doing away with the 60-vote-for-closure BS

at the start of the '09 congressional session--Republicans had already gone overboard with filibusters in the previous session, and had already decided to stop Obama from accomplishing anything by obstructing everything. A blind man could have seen it coming, but our staunch defenders of the status quo just didn't want to offend anyone on the other side of the aisle...and I'm sure President Obama didn't want them to either. After all, he was in pursuit of his Grand Bargain.

Lost opportunities, and now another Democratic president has severely tarnished the Democratic brand with this TPP crap.

[allinthegame]

38. so based on this thread

we would have been so much better off with McCain and/or Romney….
we've done quite well with Obama and no one can deny it's not better than the above choices

[dreamnightwind]

46. Do you think Romney could have gotten the TTP passed into law?

Personally I don't think he could have, I think our party would have stopped him.

[geek tragedy]

48. So you do wish Obama had lost to Romney?

Makes sense given your endorsement of the racist post that got hidden.

[dreamnightwind]

53. wow that is really low

and saying something should not be hidden is not an endorsement, very disingenuous of you.

Re the Obama/Romney question, I think we don't fight back against bad policies when our own leaders push them, and I think that is a problem.

Yours was one of the most disturbing insuations I have ever received on this site, so I will put you on ignore, I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.

[geek tragedy]

70. So you don't endorse racism, you merely condone it

and think it should be allowed without restraint at DU.

Gotcha.

[pampango]

50. So far Obama has not "gotten the TTP passed into law" either - just fast track. Do I think Romney

would have gotten fast track authority from a republican congress? I suspect the odds of that are quite high.

And I would rather have Obama negotiating any international treaty or agreement than Romney or any other republican that I can think of.

[dreamnightwind]

54. Your first point is pretty much academic

He has the Republican support, or if not he only needs a very few Dems, to pass it now that it has made it this far, requiring only a simple majority because of the TPA, if I understand correctly.

To your second point, I wonder how much actual input he really had into it? Perhaps some. Seems to me more like he is doing the bidding of others.

You're generally one of the more pro-trade people on this site, so we come at this from very different points of view.

My main point re Romney/Obama is that Democrats are reluctant to oppose policies pushed by their own president, more reluctant anyway than if a Reoublican is pushing them. Since you come at this from a mostly pro-trade perspective, you're not likely to view this the same way I do, I get that, but my point is still worth considering.

[jeff47]

71. Fast track removes the filibuster. So the TPP will pass easily. (nt)

[pampango]

78. The odds are certainly greatly improved. Nonetheless, "so far Obama has not 'gotten the TTP passed

into law'." With a large group of tea party-affiliated republicans opposing him in the House and 5 republicans voting against fast track in the Senate, I doubt Obama is figuring that the fight is over.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. I don't. Of the 13 TPA voting Democratic Senators, 6 voted for both NAFTA and CAFTA and are

free trade advocates in a very decided way. Those 6 should have been the entire focus of anyone who was wanting to halt the TPA or the TPP.

[dreamnightwind]

61. A few points in response to that...

It wouldn't be the same Senate. Don't you think we would have more Senators with a President Romney?

Seems to me we lost the Senate as part of an Obama backlash, which blows my mind because I think he's way to the right for a Dem but the backlash was because he was a socialist Kenyan or something, actually I think it had a lot to do with him being half black. Both things can be, and I think are, true, he's to the right for a Dem and the actual RW talked themselves into believing he's an islamic black socialist, because it was useful for them to do so whether it was true or not.

You make a good point, though, about the Dem Senators that supported TPA. Most if not all of them are hard-core neoliberals. I focused on Feinstein, since she is one of mine, wrote and called repeatedly, a lot of good it did, they don't even pretend to vote based on how many calls they get for or aganst an issue like this, they are working for others not for us.

And I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying we would be better off with a President Romney (not that you implied such, but I am sure others here will try to paint me into that corner).

I think it's worth taking a good look at how corporations play the two parties to get what they want, and one aspect of that game is they know Democrats are reluctant to fight back against their own President, so if they can get a Democrat to push corporate agenda items it works out quite well for them. They use that against us, we need to understand that part of the picture and deal with it.

[Maedhros]

104. At least under McCain or Romney, Democrats would fight the bullshit

instead of applauding it.

[MadDAsHell]

39. I think there were plenty of signs during his first campaign...

but for those fawning over him at the time the issues and his stance on them appeared to be irrelevant.

But hey, our votes were historical and for the cool guy; that's what counts right?

[bvar22]

145. Maybe YOUR vote was, but MY vote was for:

*Immediate re-negotiation of NAFTA to protect American Jobs. (FAIL)

*Making "EFCA the Law of the Land"...(FAIL)

*Labeling our food with Country of Origin & GMO warnings
"because Americans have the right to know what they are eating."...(FAIL)

*Raising the CAP on Social Security... (FAIL)

*Raise taxes on the RICH... (FAIL) 3.5% on the top bracket is an insult to everybody who works for a living.


SO while you and others were fawning and not paying attention to issues and policy,
some of us were.

[Sunlei]

51. It's ok, not many people like 'Stinky Clowns' either

[CanonRay]

62. If TPP is his "legacy" I feel sorry for him

because I would not be proud to have that piece of shit as my legacy.

[Renew Deal]

77. TPP, ACA, DADT repeal, DOMA struck down, ending the original wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cuba

Iran soon, and much more. He will be one of the most consequential presidents in the last 100 years.

[treestar]

64. The TPP is nothing

It's people on the internet creating a wedge issue. None of the horrors stated about it are likely to happen.

Single payer was never on the table and wouldn't have come out of this Congress. We are struggling to keep the ACA as it is. There has to be a Democratic President next or we could lose it yet.

[WI_DEM]

69. Right

and ACA is a landmark achievement which isn't given enough credit by some on the left. If there is going to be single payer one day this was a good start.

[jeff47]

73. If it's nothing, why burn all that political capital to get it? (nt)

[CanonRay]

83. Hope you are right, but think you are wrong.

Time will tell, now. In 50 years we'll all be starving from climate change anyway...

[still_one]

79. Single payer was not going to happen. Bayh, Lieberman, both Nelsons, Laudreau, and other blue dogs

would not vote for single payer. They had a choice. Get something through that was better than nothing, or leave it as it is.

[HassleCat]

80. One is not like the other

Single payer never stood a chance, and ACA would have sunk like a stone.

[abakan]

107. Exactly my feelings.

Thanks

[hifiguy]

118. Yet the Kool-Aid drinkers ignore the facts

and are begging for more of the same from their choice to be the next president.

Sad.

[Rex]

86. I can't believe he is working with the GOP (anyone remember those assholes?) on a deal

that will fuck over the labor force and give Wall Street the means to destroy the rest of the middle class. Mind boggling!

[Octafish]

101. It's chess.

And the pawns are under the bus.

[Rex]

103. So are all the rooks, bishops and knights.

Fools thought they would be safe...

[Auggie]

102. I am very, very, very disappointed in The President

[Doctor_J]

106. every single "accomplishment" has been corporate friendly

His reign has completely stripped the party of its identity, and thus its usefulness

[FiveGoodMen]

108. It would almost have been better to have an R in office

Then everyone would know who to blame.

[redstateblues]

152. Puhleez-That's ridiculous

[polichick]

110. True. The hijacking started with Clinton and is now complete.

[polichick]

109. A lot of people are finally seeing the con in the man...

Let's hope fewer get conned next time around.

[Action_Patrol]

112. FFS

[Fumesucker]

147. Nah, same group is getting all fluttery over yet another Warm Purple Centrist right now

And totally ignoring/making excuses for the bigoted racist crap that same Warm Purple Centrist flung at Obama in 2008.

There are either far more paid posters here than I would ever have believed or some seriously strange attitudes, I go back and forth from day to day as to which is more likely.

[randome]

120. Unless you're an economist, you have no idea what effect TPP will have.

If you're letting the depressing rants of a few on DU sway you, well, maybe you should look elsewhere for entertainment.

Obama is not out to 'get us'. Neither is he trying to destroy our way of life. I tend to trust him and the generation that follows us will be fine. Except, you know, they'll complain about the previous generation and worry for the future.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[raindaddy]

125. You don't have to be an economist to understand..

The implications of handing foreign corporations the power to undermine local, state and federal laws implemented to protect consumers, labor and the environment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. Except that is alarmist B.S. ...

foreign corporations have always had the power to sue local, state, and the federal government ... the difference here is that such suits would be held by an international tribunal, that A) is apolitical; and, B) as, or more, interested in maintaining sovereignty (if for no other reason, for survival's sake.

[raindaddy]

135. Right global corporations aren't interested in overturning laws...

They feel hurt their access to resources or limits their profits. Who ever heard of such a thing?

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. I didn't say that ...

Yes ... they have, since the beginning of globalized time, sought to eliminate barriers to profits and have sought to do so through courts. The only difference under TPP and WHO and NAFTA and CAFTA is their only forum for redress are international tribunals, that are apolitical, and sensitive to their own existence. These tribunals have, and will, rule against any suit that threatens a member nation's sovereignty because they rulings are the only thing that gives the agreements force (i.e., a reason for member nations to participate).

[raindaddy]

148. You could say the same exact thing about our elected reps

Politicians in theory should rule in favor of the electorate over the interests of global corporations and the big banks.. Because they want to preserve their positions..But that's not the case.. And at least we can vote these people out of office.

While I appreciate your your thoughtful response, there's is no way in hell the Amercan public should trust these tribunals.l

[1StrongBlackMan]

150. No ... there is no comparison between ...

tribunal members and politicians ... for the vast majority of the electorate, global corporations and the big banks, aren't even on their radar, so politicians are unconcerned about their votes in support of global corporations and the big banks.

there's is no way in hell the Amercan public should trust these tribunals.

Well, nation-states (i.e., Mr. & Ms. We D. People) have a far better win/loss record under the tribunals than under the "courts".

[raindaddy]

158. Thanks, but I trust Elizabeth Warren on this one

"Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages. If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges.

Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next."

The TPP was on the radar of the Democratic base and there was overwhelming opposition yet as usual there were enough Democrats to pass fast track... The public gets angry enough at least they can primary them...

[randome]

164. Alarmist bullshit. I expect better from Warren.

Our safety laws and regulations, if applied to all entities operating within our borders, cannot be challenged. If a law or regulation is changed to benefit one company over another, then there is a basis for challenge.

It's really that simple.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[raindaddy]

168. One company over another?

We're talking about challenging laws and regulations passed by elected officials..
Canadian Finance Minister Joe Oliver has already suggested that the Volker Rule violates NAFTA...
Be interesting how the corporate lawyers will sort out similar problems when they arise if they pass the TPP.
Even though "we" aren't allowed to read what's in the TPP and Warren you expect better from her because Obama's smart????

[1StrongBlackMan]

165. Well ...

The TPP was on the radar of the Democratic base and there was overwhelming opposition yet as usual there were enough Democrats to pass fast track... The public gets angry enough at least they can primary them...

The polling on TPP suggests three things: First, the majority of, both, the Democratic and republican bases, support the TPP (IIRC, recent polling has it at 58%/53%); secondly, based on that polling, the prospect of a primary based on TPP support is unlikely to succeed; and thirdly, the activist left talks to ourselves so much, we have convinced ourselves that we are the base ... we are not.

[raindaddy]

167. Well....

June 2015 New York Times/CBS News poll: 55% of the public oppose fast tracking the TPP...63% believe trade restrictions are necessary
to protect domestic industries....



.

[1StrongBlackMan]

169. Did you read the polling questions ... particularly, the trade question?

International Trade

Most Americans continue to say that trade restrictions are necessary to protect domestic industries. But the large majority of Americans haven’t heard or read much, or anything at all, about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.


Which of the following statements comes closer to your opinion?
•Trade restrictions are necessary to protect domestic industries.

•Free trade must be allowed, even if domestic industries are hurt by foreign competition.



Restriction necessary 63%

Free trade must be allowed 30%

Really? Could they have programmed the response any more?

But Okay.

[raindaddy]

170. Yea, CBS and the New York times has an anti TPP agenda.. How do you think these question would poll?

How do you feel about the Executive Branch asking your reps to vote on fast tracking a bill that you are not allowed to see?

How do you feel about an armed guard stationed at the door to confiscate any notes your Representatives might want to take to their office in order to try and understand a complex piece of legislation before being asked to vote on fast tracking it?

Is this the way you want your country to conduct its political affairs?

Is there a more pleasant way I could've asked them?

[Rex]

130. True, the actual point is to muddy the waters so you don't understand.

Thankfully almost no one on DU listens to those that like to spout misinformation about the TPP.

[randome]

163. Like I said: Obama, being the most intelligent President, we have ever had...

...is hell-bent on destroying our way of life and the environment.

It's so simple when you lay it out plainly for us. Look. I am smart enough to know I'm not smart enough to understand all the implications of the TPP. But I trust Obama. And the next President will be a Democratic one so any shortcomings that arise from the TPP will be handled.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[raindaddy]

166. Why anyone would trust any politician who doesn't want you to see the legislation

he trying to ram through congress is beyond me..
That used to be a red flag, but Obama's really, really smart so it must be OK.. And if not Hillary will fix it.. Good luck with that!

[phleshdef]

131. Get over the single payer shit. Even Bernie Sanders said they were like 10 votes max in the Senate..

...for that in 2010.

I want single payer, but you have to let go of the notion that it was ever doable. Basic math says otherwise. It might be in the future, but it wasn't then and it isn't now. America has to elect the right people for that to happen, period.

[olddots]

136. my problems started when he didn't stick up for Rev. Wright .

N.T.

[TwilightGardener]

144. He doesn't stick up for people who aren't politically useful.

He cuts them off like a tumor. Unless he thinks they will turn around and sting him, of course--he publicly still seeks out Petraeus for advice, for chrissakes--mostly because he's afraid of whatever power or secrets General All-In still wields. That said, most politicians are like that--their advisors generally handle such matters and tell them who to throw under the bus and who to massage for future use.

[AngryOldDem]

146. He has been a disappointment.

That was brought home to me the other day while listening to him on Marc Maron's podcast (EXCELLENT 'cast, by the way). They were talking about his achievements during his presidency and Obama basically said nobody can get everything they want all the time.

True that, but damn, I wish he had fought just a little harder for health care reform.

And TPP will be another NAFTA. Guaranteed.