Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm pretty sure Obama has laughed the idea of joining the SC off anyway. As for the TPP, we know that as a president he favour it, if he does as a legal expert we've no idea.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranObama favors the TPP because he's heavily invested in anti-China rhetoric, which is one specific point that I disagree with him on. However, it's really not fair to toss his entire Presidency out the window over this one issue.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
I'm not tossing out his presidency, I'm expressing skepticism about whether he'd make a good justice. Considering he's got access to every strategic expert he could possibly want to consult, he must know that in the long term, China is a paper tiger unless it manages to sort out a host of internal issues, and there'll be more than enough early warning before its in position to eclipse the US if it actually manages to pull that off. Thus I am forced to conclude his motivation is either economic isolation of a nation which will not be a credible threat to the United States in the foreseeable future, or that he is legitimately in favor of the massive bill of investors' rights included in the treaty.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:16:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
Strategic experts don't tend to tell president's everything at times, so I wouldn't be sure that he knows China is a paper tiger. The Very Serious People are in IR as well as economics.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFundamentally, Obama believes in the ability of government to act as a unifying force, and part of that means compromise between ideals and practical reality. Despite, or perhaps because of the incredible polarization of the political landscape, he resists being seen to take direct advice from people outside his immediate circle of trusted confidants. This means that there is a risk of epistemic closure forming around the Presidency, wherein ideas that are strongly disputed in the public arena remain unchallenged within that inner circle. (Put another way (
), the VSPs are just as pernicious inside the Executive branch as they are elsewhere.)
That said, he does respond to overwhelming public sentiment — the thing is that said sentiment is not uniform with respect to TPP. Not everyone thinks it'll be apocalyptic, including me; meanwhile, some of the strongest anti-TPP voices tend to discredit themselves with hysterical left-wing rhetoric in other areas.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:25:50 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Because, too often, its opponents like to offer the hyperbolic claims that TPP will be the end of freedom, or some such tripe. Really, it won't, guys.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:18:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
As I said though, the worst case scenario is something that's pretty grim; environmental regulation being sabotaged by energy company lawsuits in a court that is almost certainly going to end up as a pro-corporate Kangaroo Court. Moreover, the TPP also includes a re-branded SOPA as of the latest leaks, and that's something that would seriously undermine the Internet as we know it. Life goes on, but one of the greatest developments in human intellectual history has been severely hamstrung.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:27:22 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Fighteer: The reason why I was asking about using "apocalyptic" is because there is such a thing as a person who think it's merely "bad". You were setting the statement up in such a way that seemed to not account for that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, we just heard assertions that it would destroy the planet by letting companies challenge environmental regulation in a Kangaroo Court and also destroy the Internet by giving undisputed reign to copyright infringement claims. So...
edited 27th Jun '16 12:27:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Live tweets from Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick's press conference on the Supreme Court's decision to call Texas' abortion laws unconstitutional.
"What they rejected is troubling for everyone."
"This is a devastating blow to women's safety and health.
"Senate will revisit the issue. They'll go back through the bill line by line.
Ok, stop. Don't cherrypick the most extreme claims as if they were the only ones which matter. I don't remember much of polling on these treaties but there are definitively people who merely consider them "bad".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou all are seriously underestimating China. The second largest economy in the world is hardly a paper tiger. And Obama has been very clear about the "need to cooperate with China" ,arguably far more than he should be, like most western leaders he lets them get away with murder when it comes to trade. If we don't dictate the order of trade in Asia, the fastest growing region on the planet, China will. They already have their own pact. If Elizabeth Warren and her crew are as guilty of treason and undermining the President as those Republicans who sent a letter to the Ayatollah.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.I'm pretty sure any fantasizing about Obama being on the Supreme Court is moot; candidates are expected to have actual judicial experience. Legislative or lawyer doesn't cut it. And it's not a post people can get away with nominating for as a political favor like you can for the Cabinet (so far).
(The Supreme Court is a branch of the government I largely still respect even when they make rulings I don't agree with. The justices have human fallibility like anyone else but they aren't idiots and seem to care about the ideals entrusted in them. )
edited 27th Jun '16 12:37:19 PM by Elle
![]()
When China successfully transitions to an economy driven by internal consumption and/or service, notify me. Right now its relationship of the US is much like the comparison of the countries' respective nuclear arsenals; China's arsenal is big enough to devastate but not destroy the United States in contrast with the apocalyptic power of the US arsenal. The same is true of their economies; the US could destroy China's economy if it cared to; this would come at great cost to the US, but China cannot threaten the US with the same, in spite of posturing and scaremongering.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:36:37 PM by CaptainCapsase
I'm not cherry-picking, Septimus; those are the primary assertions of TPP opponents. Now, not all of them believe it'll be the end of freedom and civilization, but if so, you'd have a hard time picking it out from the tone of their rhetoric.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
To get back to the original topic, while it's unlikely that those particular clauses would live up to the worst case scenario, it's not impossible, and that Obama is willing to allow that does not bode well in my eyes for which way he would rule as a Justice.
SOPA itself was, IIRC, a re branding of yet another bill that attempted to restrain the Internet, which thankfully failed. There may have been an even earlier bill of that nature that got turned down, though i don't quite remember.
edited 27th Jun '16 12:46:51 PM by CaptainCapsase
SOPA, PIPA, CISPA... it just keeps going. Frankly, the problem with those bills isn't the content so much as it is the insider track that they get placed on thanks to the cushy relationships that industry insiders have with certain Congressmen. That I won't dispute at all, and it's deeply insulting to have it implied that we, as the public, are too ignorant to understand the technical details of a bill so it'll just get passed quietly without telling anyone.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

edited 27th Jun '16 12:07:50 PM by CaptainCapsase