Congress Introduce Bi-Partisan Bill To Abdicate Its Own Role And Screw Over American Public All At Once

from the shameful dept

Thu, Jan 9th 2014 12:11pm — Mike Masnick

We knew this was happening sooner or later, but Senate Finance chair Max Baucus, along with ranking member Orrin Hatch, have introduced the "fast track authority" bill in the Senate. Over in the House, the same basic bill has been introduced by Rep. Dave Camp. There had been rumors that the introduction of the bill would be delayed because not a single House Democrat would co-sponsor the bill, but apparently the existing bill supporters decided not to wait. Fast track authority or "trade promotion authority" is a very dangerous concept. It is basically Congress completely abdicating its Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

Instead, what fast track authority means is that Congress is saying, "that's okay, you guys in the administration can handle that." Basically, it's Congress flat out telling the White House and the USTR that it, and not the Congress, can come up with trade agreements with foreign powers, and Congress will tie its own hands in being able to challenge or review the various provisions. Instead, it will limit Congress entirely to an up or down vote on the entire trade agreement. And, in this case, the fast track authority will be used to approve the TPP (and likely TAFTA/TTIP after that). These are trade agreements that, as we've already discussed, are designed to help certain legacy industries at the expense of innovation and the public. Specifically, this would grant the administration four years of "fast track authority" with an easy three year extension after that.

The most ridiculous part is that the sponsors of the bill that will give up Congress' own powers are claiming that it does the opposite:

TPA-2014 also provides greater transparency and gives Congress greater oversight of the Administration’s trade negotiations.

Uh, no. It does the exact opposite. It takes away Congress' Constitutional powers to regulate commerce with other nations, providing less oversight for trade negotiations and guaranteeing even less transparency than the almost none that exists today. The sponsors of the bill are pretending that the details in the 107 page bill "instruct" the USTR how to properly negotiate things like the TPP, but it's basically just repeating the USTR's existing wishlist. Included are, of course, a section on the importance of "high standards of intellectual property protection" as well as support for dangerous corporate sovereignty tribunals, commonly referred to as "investor state dispute settlement" plans.

While this bill is moderately bipartisan in the sponsorship (with Senator Baucus selling out the majority of his party who is opposed to it), it's the Republicans who are the driving force behind this. And that makes no sense at all. This is the same Republican party who shut down the entire federal government to block the president's healthcare proposal, and has spent years attacking anything that even has the mild stench of the executive branch taking on a role that goes beyond what the Constitution allows. And yet here they are gleefully handing over the Constitutionally-given reins for regulating foreign commerce... to the president they hate? How does that make any sense at all?

TPA Bill Text (PDF)TPA Bill Text (Text)

TPA One Pager (PDF)TPA One Pager (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, dave camp, fast track authority, max baucus, orrin hatch, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, ttip, ustr

64 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Falindraun (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:23pm

looks like this is the beginning of the end. we Americans can only attempt to politely vote the worst of congress out of office so many times. if this passes i expect violent revolution from certain folks in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  Really, so many of the problems with this nation would vanish if Congress had to walk through a hallway lined with the skulls of their predecessors to get to work each day. Call it the "Hall of Treason's End" or somesuch.
  Just add a new skull or two every once in a while, and they'd be tripping over themselves to do their jobs properly. And with actual good governance, monopolies would dissolve (e.g. the telcos), the economy would improve, unemployment would drop, policies that had run amok would be reined in (e.g. the NSA), the suicide rate would go down...
  Lose a few corrupt officials, save uncountable lives, make the world a better place. Win-win-win.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:27pm

You knew this had to come at some point. The fast track authority has expired and is no longer valid without renewal. This has been what the USTR and the administration has been banking on with the TPP. I seriously doubt at this point it has the support to pass. Too many are pointing to problems with how trade treaties are now being done by the USTR.

Even if they pass it, unless the US can come up with new arm twisters, it is unlikely to pass the global approval beyond a select group participating in it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Conscious Catholic, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  "Even if they pass it, unless the US can come up with new arm twisters, it is unlikely to pass the global approval beyond a select group participating in it now."
  
  I completely forgot about global approval UN is already fighting with corporations on who gets the run the planet, but even is Fast-Track doesn't pass, the snobs will try another way, and we will be ready
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re:
  Since you dorks can't even get off the couch and move out of your parent's house, excuse us if we remain skeptical of your claims about imminent revolution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Barron von Robber, 9 Jan 2014 @ 3:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
    I spotted the Fed first!
    I win. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:30pm

Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
I don't see how Congress can, regardless of how many sponsors or votes a bill gets, pass anything that is in direct conflict with that specified in the Constitution. Last I looked, that document had not yet been thoroughly repealed (if somewhat tattered and beaten around the edges). Can;t imagine this would withstand the most rudimentary of constitutional challenges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
  I don't see how the federal government can PRINT money when the constitution only gives them the power to COIN money, but that doesn't stop them from printing paper money. (Yes, the founding fathers did argue over paper vs coin money when they wrote the constitution, it wasn't worded that way because it simply sounded better).
  
  I also don't recall the constitution stating that the president can also declare war, or that we send in our army to topple foreign governments through votes of 'use of military force' rather than votes of declarations of war.
  
  The government can do whatever blatantly unconstitutional things it wants if no one in any of the 3 branches of government stops them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 9 Jan 2014 @ 3:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
    It also outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, but that didn't stop them from drafting people into the military and doesn't stop them from making people serve on juries.
    And don't even get me started on the first, second, fourth, and tenth amendments.
    But hey, at least the government faithfully abides by the sixteenth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
  Congress passes unconstitutional laws routinely. They're still laws until a court strikes them down. Sometimes, it's hard to blame congress for this -- it's not always obvious that there's a constitutional issue with a given law -- but sometimes, they're gaming a weakness in the system. If appealed all the way to the supreme court, an unconstitutional law can remain on the books for many years before it finally gets struck down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous, 9 Jan 2014 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
    Well, maybe congress should actually READ bills before voting on them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 5:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
      It would be even better if Congress actually WROTE the bills instead of letting the low-life lobbyists do it for them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: Can Congress give away that which the Constitution mandates?
  Doesn't the Patriot Act do just that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Garner (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:31pm

It makes sense, in a twisted logic sort of way. The GOP has to know that passing TPP (et al) will backfire, so by putting the responsibility on the White House, they can also put the blame there when the public starts complaining about it. They are just supplying the rope, it will be up to Obama to finish the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  I think it has more to do with the fact that all branches of government have some masters in common, and when those masters make a demand, everyone gets on the same page. Regardless of governmental branch, party, or political bent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:32pm

Stupid People everywhere!!!
So now that it has become common practice to rewrite the Constitution without you know... actually getting amendments written, debated, and voted on whats next?

If you believe that this law would actually be legal if they "pass it" then you need reeducation.

Our government is flat out acting like a criminal organization without any repercussions.

Nixon was a fucking saint compared to the idiots in there now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: Stupid People everywhere!!!
  I wouldn't say Nixon is a saint compared to politicians nowadays. I would say that he appears quaint and restrained now, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:33pm

That is one way of resolving the conflict between what the voters want, and what their paymasters want, wash their hand of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coogan (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:42pm

I've never been to the Capitol Building, but at this point I'd be willing to bet that the toilet paper in the bathrooms are rolls of little squares with pages of the Constitution on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lurker Keith, 9 Jan 2014 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry to burst your bubble, but they aren't. They can't. It's too dangerous. Members of Congress may actually read the toilet paper while they're bored. &, unfortunately, there are entities out there that would find Members of Congress reading the Constitution objectionable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Coogan (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pfft. The only paper a member of Congress is interested in reading are the green rectangular ones with "$100" printed in the corners.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 9 Jan 2014 @ 12:49pm

It's NOT "the Republicans", Mike: it's THE ESTABLISHMENT.
Why do you even go off on silly "partisan" ranting? There are NO "Republicans" or "Democrats" in Congress for the last 20 years or so, just pro-corporate Establishment hacks. You should drop all mention of R's and D's, it's childish at this point. The blundering around of your last paragraph is then unnecessary.

Apparently you've already forgotten the anti-corporatist bit you took up late December, go rabbiting off on sheerly political tripe without mention of the beneficiaries of TPP.
If gov't doesn't tax money away from The Rich to use for The People, then The Rich use that money to further corrupt gov't.

08:49:33[j-402-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:15pm
  
  Re: It's NOT "the Republicans", Mike: it's THE ESTABLISHMENT.
  Maybe because the Republicans and Democrats like to portray themselves as being a legitimate alternative of the other (which might be true on a few trivial but emotionally-charged issues, like the legality of flag-burning, sodomy, etc.) but in fact there's no difference between them anytime there's entrenched interests, lobbyists and campaign dollars being waved in their faces.
  
  I'm sure most of us would support either party that would support people-friendly proposals like ending copyright term extensions, guaranteeing fair-use exemptions, or demanding that a DMCA claim be verified by a human before being sent(no more mass-mailing auto-bots spewing legally-binding accusations). But since the vested corporate interests are in direct opposition to the public-interest on such issues (and there are rarely advocates for the public interest working Capitol Hill) there's little chance of that ever happening.
  
  Even when the people demand change and candidates promise it repeatedly, it won't happen. That Obama turned out to be a staunch supporter of the very things he campaigned against so vociferously should not surprise anyone in the least.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:00pm

Already called...
Both my senators and my rep in congress before making any comments down here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re: Already called...
  Is there a specific bill for the House? The PDF above is for the Senate. I want to make sure I tell my House rep the correct one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 4:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Already called...
    Dunno, but give your rep a call anyway to make sure they know where you stand, that's what I did for my rep.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous, 9 Jan 2014 @ 5:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Already called...
      Let us know how that works out for ya.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymoose, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:07pm

This seems vaguely impeachable, and certainly unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:07pm

wouldn't corporate sovereignty allow for companies to sue the shit out of the NSA ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re:
  Not necessarily. Corporate sovereignty will allow what it says in the agreement. I imagine any three letter agencies will be made explicitly untouchable in the scope of future international agreements using the tool!
  
  Corporate sovereignty holds some merits in some situation (when dealing with dictatorships in particular), but between countries with somewhat working democracies it holds only few upsides and huge potential downsides!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  no because the NSA has the phonecalls, emails etc of steve ballmer, tim cook and a host of other fortune 500 CEOs.....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:13pm

Ok so there must be a reason for this so lets look at what congress knows about this bill so far...

.

.

.

.

End.

So to wrap up they are passing up their authority to fast track a bill they no literally zero things about. We need a new system this shit isn't working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baron von Robber, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:24pm
  
  Re:
  I think the system is fine for the most part, it's software that's the issue.
  
  Garbage in, garbage out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The system is software.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Baron von Robber, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Naw. I see the system (Constitution) as hardware.
      
      The software is the people running the hardware.
      
      Garbage in, garbage out.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it's the other way around. The Constitution lays out the rules. It is the program, thus software. The people are the ones that are supposed to implement the rules. They are the hardware.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:24pm

Star wars moment?
The constitution is Chancellor Valorum, The senate is Queen Amadala about to pass a vote of no confidence in Valorum. The question is, who is the Palpatine that put them up to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:31pm

Honestly, this is pretty frightening
There's a coup taking place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArkieGuy (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 1:46pm

Blowback from SOPA?
Could it be that Congress saw how much of a hot potato SOPA was and how many people got ticked off and might not vote for them, so they are offloading the blame on the executive branch if TAFTA (etc) pisses everyone off.

Nah... couldn't be. That would mean that they are smart enough to SEE that people are likely to get pissed off and they are too oblivious for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 5:14am
  
  Re: Blowback from SOPA?
  It's all about the next election. That's all it's Ever about. Pathetic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:29pm

Hold on...
Unless the US government changed when I wasn't looking, passage of bills goes first House then Senate, and then they have to come to an agreement on it, and not the other way around?

We all knew this was coming back at the end of November when nothing happened despite the USTR/Obama begging Congress to pass the legislation giving the scumbags at the USTR the ability to force the TPP down our throats on a silver platter.

However, we're forgetting that midterms are this year, so the drop in Congressional productivity will hamper any chance of the Senate Finance Chair getting his bill passed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 9:16pm
  
  Re: Hold on...
  However, we're forgetting that midterms are this year, so the drop in Congressional productivity will hamper any chance of the Senate Finance Chair getting his bill passed...
  
  Well, maybe. If an important voting period is coming up, it's quite likely the ones pushing the bill(s) will be strongly 'urging' other congress/senate critters to pass this, so they can look like they're 'doing something', and the ability to look like they're 'doing something', while at the same time skipping out on actually having to do anything more than vote twice(one for FTA, one for the 'trade agreement') is likely to be very tempting to a lot of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vel, 9 Jan 2014 @ 2:37pm

Well, no shit they are, Mike.
The bastards probably got their heads stuffed full of green paper bills with big pretty numbers on them. Is it really any wonder they're a bunch of sycophants when they are supported by these legacy companies too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 9 Jan 2014 @ 3:23pm

And yet here they are gleefully handing over the Constitutionally-given reins for regulating foreign commerce... to the president they hate? How does that make any sense at all?

It makes sense because it's what the corporations want and that's more important to Congress than any disagreement they might have with the president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 4:54pm

FTA's been in use for 40 years. It hasn't been much of an issue until now. I guess if you can't win people over on the issue, you attack the process instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 6:42pm
  
  Re:
  *FTA= fast track authority, not free trade agreement
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 4:56pm

Looks like the majority of the US population is on the "fast-track" to economic collapse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 6:55pm

Well that's handy
Since anyone voting for this is basically saying 'I do not want to do my job', sounds like a good way to have a list of just who to vote out next time it comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 8:38pm
  
  Re: Well that's handy
  Fast track authority has been around for forty years. Why so butthurt?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 9 Jan 2014 @ 9:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Well that's handy
    Oh I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that they're trying to get it back(because remember, it lapsed, and so is available no longer) in order to force through a 'trade agreement' that's been kept completely secret from the public and most of the government, with the few pieces that have slipped out revealing it to be basically a wishlist for a few specific industries(industries that have had representative and 'advisers' involved from day one of the negotiations), forcing the people in congress and the senate to either agree to the entire thing, or disagree to it all, without being able to weed out any objectionable parts from the good parts.
    
    Also, if you really believe that all of the various parts of the 'trade agreement' are good, beneficial, and can stand under scrutiny, you should have no problem with the government and the people being able to go over, and reject or approve each piece on an individual basis, rather than the 'all or nothing' approach that FTA would turn it into.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 9:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
      Lots of things lapse and need reauthorization. Like long term unemployments, budget authorization, the Farm Bill, etc.
      
      This agreement has been done any differently today than it has since before most of those whining were born. You seem to fail to understand the difference between legislation and diplomacy.
      
      I doubt you know anything about any other chapter than the IP chapter. And within that, I doubt you know (or care about) anything other than weakening copyright. So now you somehow think that copyright should be the tail that wags the dog?
      
      That's precisely why an up/down vote is needed. so that extremists cannot torpedo an entire agreement over their one pet concern. The environmentalists would love a line item veto, so would organized labor. Congress has the ability to vote it down. What chaps your ass is that your desire to enfeeble copyright has to compete with the other components of the agreement. You clowns are always talking about competition. Here's a perfect opportunity for you to compete with the other trade concerns in the TPP. Go have at it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2014 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        *agreement has not been done*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 10 Jan 2014 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        AC, our beef with TPP is all about getting Congress to represent we the people, not the damn corporations.
        
        Go to Ecuador and take a look at the pollution Chevron is responsible for. Basically, when Ecuador complained, they took them to court, which ordered a sovereign nation to change its environmental laws to suit Chevron.
        
        That is our future if TPP passes.
        
        Oh, and pray to the Market that you never get sick; they're planning to ramp up "evergreening" on drugs.
        
        Enjoy corporate tyranny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        So if your representative is not representing the majority of the people in his district, how does he get elected? Maybe you should emerge from Mom's basement every other November and make your objections known at the polls. Maybe make your views known at a town hall meeting or your rep's district office. Maybe organize opposition by like-minded people. Or even run yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pragmatic, 10 Jan 2014 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        I've actually been advocating that since I started posting here. Do try to keep up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 9:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        Really? Why not share with us what you personally have actually done�. other than "advocating" here in the echo chamber.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well that's handy
        So if your representative is not representing the majority of the people in his district, how does he get elected?
        
        Money & power, that's how. Incumbents almost always win reelection, but that in no way means they're successfully representing their constituents.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 2:41am

Srsly?

So the Congress has failed in overseeing the espionage madness allowing the NSA to reign free, it is simply ignoring tons of abuses by law enforcement and now wants to abdicate yet more capabilities of overseeing stuff? Why have a congress in the first place then if it doesn't do its job? Just close the damn thing down and let those morons sleep on the streets.

Seriously...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pragmatic, 10 Jan 2014 @ 3:36am

...and not a single **** was given by the Republican/Libertarian shills who pop in to comment from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derek, 10 Jan 2014 @ 3:36pm

"How does that make any sense at all?"
The Republicans are pushing this, and it has bipartisan support, because it simplifies the process of buying policy.

From a party perspective, this is a win-win. Less opportunities for individual politicians to exert granular influence, more opportunities for business interests to write and pass agreements wholesale.

The point of this bill is to make it easier for corporations and trade associations to get what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 3:57pm

It makes complete sense once you realize that Obama is a ringer, a replacement for George Bush, who walks, talks and acts like a democrat, but who takes orders from the GOP on everything - a corporate puppet president. The astute among you might note that Obama has completed everything that Bush started and has pretty much fulfilled the republican dream since taking office.

After all, even the stupidest of Republicans realized they could never get another Republican Warlord into the White House after Gee Dubya Bush, even with a fully rigged election process, so they did the next best thing. They bought themselves a democrat-for-hire and made sure all the competing democrat and republican candidates were utter wack-jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 10 Jan 2014 @ 9:12pm
  
  Re:
  While I don't exactly disagree that he's been pretty much 'Bush Mk 2', saying all the crap he's done is due to the republicans seems to miss the point, namely both parties these days are essentially corporate fronts, taking their orders from the people and companies that pay them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2014 @ 9:19pm
  
  Re:
  It makes complete sense once you realize that Obama is a ringer, a replacement for George Bush, who walks, talks and acts like a democrat, but who takes orders from the GOP on everything - a corporate puppet president.
  
  Everything like the Affordable Care Act, or raising the debt ceiling, or raising taxes on the rich, or extended unemployment benefits, or immigration reform, or cap-and-trade, or recognizing gay marriage, or increasing the minimum wage�.. is that what you mean?
  
  Honestly, you have to be the stupidest motherfucker to grace these pages in a long while.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jan 2014 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    The Affordable Care Act was originally a Republican proposal (and it shows). The only reason the Republicans hate it now is because Obama is now connected with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]