Yes, exactly. And we just lost big credibility with those countries as well…at a time when we need that credibility in the region more than ever. Just look at the way the Philippines is going for an example of this.
I’m not seeing it. For one thing, ‘right wing’ organizations should be the ones all for the TPP, while it’s militantly unsurprising that left wing organizations such as unions are all for protectionism measures that will enable them to shelter their jobs. Groups like the Sierra Club have different agendas and reasons to oppose the TPP which revolve around the supposed lack of environmental protection measures and giving evil Big Business a free hand in destroying the planet.
Was Clinton’s campaign against it also ‘populist drivel’ and ‘madness’? It seems really strange to be so harsh on Sanders and Trump for opposing the TPP, when Clinton’s campaign position was that she was really firmly opposed to it to. In fact, the only candidate on the ballot who campaigned in favor of the TPP was Gary Johnson. It’s really weird to hear people talking about how awful of a decision this is by Trump, and how it aligns with him being an idiot, when all of the candidates who stood some chance of winning (being on the ballot or seriously contesting a primary) but one were opposed to it.
Well, I could be wrong, but I figured Clinton was ‘opposed’ to it because of the traction Sanders was getting on it, and she was basically jumping on the bandwagon for the election. Myself, I was of the opinion that, once elected Clinton would have tested the waters…if Congress was still opposed then she would have let it die, but if she felt there was a chance she would have changed her tune, since it was the smart thing for the US to do if we can get past all the ridiculous anti-trade and protectionist folks coming out of the wood work.
I don’t believe that Trump is opposed to the TPP because he really thinks it’s a dead issue due to Congress…his opposition is because he really believes we shouldn’t be in such trade deals, as you can see by the fact he also wants to renegotiate or do away with NAFTA next. Same goes for Sanders. He wasn’t opposed to it because he felt it couldn’t get through congress or because his opponent was and he wanted to score points, he was opposed because of his own ideological reasons. Perhaps that makes him and Trump better people in the eyes of some. Makes them idiots from my perspective. YMMV of course.
That was my understanding of the TPP as well. It specifically excluded China and focused on trade with the east & south Pacific rim countries.
I don’t get this either. The deal was dead. All the major candidates were against it, Congress was against it, how was this ever supposed to get passed?
It’s symbolic.
It’s also the start of his campaign to have the name of [del]Moses[/del] Obama be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of [del]Egypt[/del] America.
It’s dead, Jim.
No, two insurgents who gained traction and a spineless favorite daughter was against it. The establishment of both parties was for it as was most trade and industry. It would have been a tough sell, but they would have eventually got it through.
Trump has further stated that from now on the US will eschew multilateral trade deals and focus on bilateral accords. I also hear he is going to ban auto mobiles and bring back the horse and buggy.
Yes.
In case I wasn’t clear, Trump is an idiot for opposing it, Sanders is/was an idiot for the same reason, and Hillary’s only redeeming feature is that she might have been lying about opposing it.
Opposition to free trade, as RickJay says, is a populist position. Trump is against free trade because he is populist (and stupid). Sanders is against free trade because he was populist (and socialist, which is almost synonymous with stupid on economics), and Hillary was against free trade because she was trying to be populist (and cynical).
Regards,
Shodan
So your basic contention is that Clinton wasn’t an idiot for opposing it because she was jumping on a bandwagon and probably lying when she opposed it, but Sanders and Trump (and maybe congress too) are idiots for opposing it for real reasons? I just don’t buy this line of argument, that it’s terrible for Trump kill the deal himself when every presidential candidate but Johnson opposed it, although you think Clinton was just lying when she opposed it, and Congress opposes it too. I’m not even touching on the actual merits of the deal itself.
Also, it also amazes me how on one hand this kind of evaluation of Clinton is common, and on the other hand how many people on the board were shocked that anyone anywhere would consider Clinton untrustworthy.
I’m not sure tearing up the deal is the solution, but, if the leaks were correct, there was a lot of non-trade related stuff in there that shouldn’t have been, hence why I have opposed the TPP–pending actually seeing it to know if those bad things were still in there.
I’m not protectionist in general. I just didn’t think that the TPP was a good agreement. But I do suspect the solution was to negotiate a bit more, rather than tear it up. The only way I support Trump is if he will then go and negotiate a better deal.
Otherwise, it’s like tearing up the ACA without replacing it.
Clinton’s only possible redeeming grace on this issue was that she might have been untrustworthy, and was only saying it to get elected.
In this case at least it might have been better to elect the knave you don’t know than the fool you do.
Regards,
Shodan
This was it for me–at least, the last part.
I’m not sure tearing up the deal is the solution, but, if the leaks were correct, there was a lot of non-trade related stuff in there that shouldn’t have been, hence why I have opposed the TPP–pending actually seeing it to know if those bad things were still in there.
I’m not protectionist in general. I just didn’t think that the TPP was a good agreement. But I do suspect the solution was to negotiate a bit more, rather than tear it up. The only way I support Trump is if he will then go and negotiate a better deal.
Otherwise, it’s like tearing up the ACA without replacing it.
“Supposed”? Are you saying there really were environmental protection measures in TPP? If so, what were they? If not, why is the word “supposed” in that phrase?
My understanding (and this was based on the limited information available about what really was in the TPP) is that it leaves it up to the local countries and their own laws and rules. It doesn’t attempt to dictate environmental policy to any country to be in the TPP. Environmental groups, however, want those sorts of things to be in the treaty/partnership and since they aren’t, they are opposed.
And you find that unlikely because… ?
Let me ask you this; did you support the ACA? You have to admit it wasn’t perfect and was rife with flaws; even it most ardent defenders admit that, and smarter people went into it knowing there’s be a lot of unexpected results and unintended consequences. But the quite reasonable answer was “We had to start somewhere.”
Why is the same logic not applicable to TPP? Not that this sort of thing is wholly new; NAFTA works well, after all, as do many other free trade deals, and the lessons of those were being drawn upon. But it wouldn’t have been perfect; there would have been unintended consequences that would have had to be fixed as they arose. But it’s better than nothing.
I believe this to be wholly correct and as good an explanation as any as to why there was a lot of cynicism in the 2016 Presidential election.
The choice here is not between nothing and something RickJay, its between a US or China dominated trade regime in the Far East and Pacific. As of today, its going to be a China dominted one.
This. The TPP turned into a backdoor session of hanging every special-interest favor under the sun onto the Christmas tree, until the tree keeled over like Charlie Brown’s.
I but look at her husband’s record. He SAID a lot of things during his campaign, but when it came down to it he did what was practical and generally would work. He was able to toss out his political baggage when it ran head first into reality and able to take something from the other side of the political aisle when it would work. I believe that Hillary was of the same mold…hell, I voted for her because I was counting on it, hoping that the (to me) ridiculous left wing rhetoric she was putting out was for the faithful to try and get them to vote for her, all the while planning to do the smart thing and move to the center and be a centrist president. Personally, I never saw her as particularly trustworthy…I saw her as a pragmatist. That’s what I was looking for.