SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
Democrats in the House dealt a stunning blow to the administration's trade agenda on [June 12], just hours after President Barack Obama personally lobbied lawmakers to grant him authority to negotiate several global trade deals that Congress could vote on without amending.
In the week leading up to Friday's vote, House leadership expressed optimism that it could muscle through the so-called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), despite loud objections from most Democrats and conservative Republicans. Under the rules, the House had to pass: 1) a provision to aid workers displaced by foreign imports--Trade Assistance Authority or TAA and 2) the TPA. But Democrats, who have historically supported providing federal assistance to workers displaced by trade agreements, led a campaign to torpedo the TAA in order to kill the full bill. The TAA failed in a vote of 302 -126 and the TPA passed 219-211 (with 28 Democratic votes), meaning the overall measure will not advance to the president's desk.
House leaders promised on Friday to bring both back for a vote early next week. The Senate approved the full package earlier this month.
[...]Democrats and their allies in the labor movement have objected to the secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations and various provisions said to be included in the deal. One section allows companies to take governments before an arbitration tribunal and argue that certain regulations interfere with their bottom line. Another would would delay the introduction of generic versions of life-saving pharmaceuticals. Progressives have also criticized the deal for failing to adequately enforce labor and environmental standards and prohibit the Pacific Area countries from manipulating their currencies.
Additional coverage at The New York Times , The Washington Post , pbs.org, and C-SPAN.
Original Submission
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @12:46AM
I don't get it. Clearly there are reputable sources covering this matter. I see four them listed at the bottom of the summary. Those are generally high-quality sources, they tend to be non-partisan, and they try to remain impartial. So why does the top of the summary still link to this questionable, no-name ThinkProgress site? That should have been removed, and replaced with any one of the four links at the bottom of the article.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @01:21AM
3 cheerleaders for Free Trade / the regime weren't enough for you when added to the source that actually covers popular protests (instead of ignoring them)?
Note: Never having consumed C-SPAN, I can't confirm that they are an actual "news" outlet and not simply an echo chamber for incumbents.
Thanks for your censorship advice.
It fits right in here.
Oh, wait...
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @02:49AM
What the heck are you talking about?
Why do liberals like you always go on and on about "vast right-wing conspiracies"?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:22AM
Shit man, were too busy dealing with Democrats to deal with that ... http://americanextremists.thecomicseries.com/comics/470/ [thecomicseries.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:29AM
Why was that modded insightful? It isn't insightful at all. PBS and C-SPAN are among the most impartial news sources around, with some of the highest standards of journalistic integrity. It's absolutely absurd to question them. It's even worse when the person questioning them openly admits to having never bothered to even expose himself to their work. It's no wonder his standards are so low. He goes out of his way not to see what true journalism is like!
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:19AM
Right....(warning: sarcasm) and Faux News is "Fair and Balanced".
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:28AM
The main problem with NPR and PBS is 1) Unwillingness to consider risky ideas 2) Depth and insight of analyses are typically lacking to those with especially high standards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:12AM
Because everyone goes to Fox "News" for their in depth analysis and high standards right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @10:16PM
The main problem with NPR and PBS is 1) Unwillingness to consider risky ideas 2) Depth and insight of analyses are typically lacking to those with especially high standards.
NPR/PBS are corporate sponsored, commercial media. Any claim to the contrary is ignoring the constant barrage of advertisements they broadcast for their sponsors. But, they also want funding from government sources that are subject to whims of political tides. Once accused by the Republicans of not being far enough to the right, and so should have their funding cut, they swung even farther to the right-wing, pro-corporate extreme than they were before with just the pressure from their corporate (mainly petroleum companies) sponsors.
There is also a demographic within PBS that is very pro Zionist. This demographic taints their news reporting to be ridiculously pro-Israel.
But, they are probably better than most other large media in the U.S. Not because they are even approaching slightly good, just because the others are so much more terrible.
gewg is right about Pacifica. There are a few great programs on Pacifica (Letters and Politics" is consistently good, Behind the News is usually good). Pacifica is left-wing media, and the voices on Pacifica are some of the strongest critics of the non-left Democratic party, as well as of their colleagues in right-wing corporate media, including PBS/NPR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @01:52AM
Hey, I wouldn't steer you wrong.
Pacifica is left-wing media
That's going a bit far.
I don't consider someone Left unless he rejects Capitalism as a failed system.
Now, there are a bunch of -Democrats- on my Pacifica affiliate.
On KPFK, the only folks I can think of who are actually Left are Michael Slate, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party [kpfk.org]
and Chris Burnett is an Anarchist. [google.com]
Eric Mann [thestrategycenter.org] is a human rights activist and a union man.
His dedication to civil liberties is legendary.
Blase Bonpane [kpfk.org] is a former missionary priest (Central America) who is big on Liberation Theology.
He's cut from the same cloth as Eric.
Chris Hedges is one of the smartest guys on the planet and is a captivating speaker.
He is a recurring guest on Pacifica.
A recent page by him on Marx's prediction of the implosion of Capitalism [commondreams.org] is the best thing I have read in a long, long, long time.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:37AM
Did you honestly just write that PBS is a "right-wing news source"?! Seriously?! And some fucking moron modded you up?! What the fuck?!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:37AM
I used to watch the PBS NewsHour.
After it was purchased by a Republican consortium in Richmond, VA, there was a shift rightward.
Having Mark Shields represent the "Left" in their point/counterpoint sessions was pure comedy.
It reminds me of NPR's "Left, Right, and Center" which would properly be called "Center, Right, and Hanging Off the Reactionary Edge".
I used to respect "Frontline" as well. No mas. [dissidentvoice.org]
Again, if you think Lamestream Media (any media that has sponsors or "underwriters") is "Left", you are clueless what "Left" looks like.
I have mentioned some media outlets that are actually not Wrong Wing.
It's clear you've never consumed anything of that genre--but that doesn't stop you from displaying your ignorance of the range of media.
-- gewg_
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:41AM
Mod that stupidity down! PBS is not a right wing source of news! Neither is C-SPAN!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:49AM
Insightful my arse. PBS is like BBC: it's not rightist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @03:57AM
How the fuck can somebody say that PBS is 'right wing'?????
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 16 2015, @12:53AM
From an American perspective, anything that isn't fascist is considered "left". That goes to show just how far to the right everything in the US is. There is nothing that comes anywhere near even the center in the US, everything is far right and even further right.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:01AM
Dude, PBS and C-SPAN are not right wing!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:04AM
The NYT, PBS and C-SPAN are not right wing at all. Why did such a wrong comment get modded up to 4, Insightful?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:09AM
You must be pretty fucking far to the left to consider the New York Times, C-SPAN and PBS to be "right wing"!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:12AM
What kind of idiot modded up that drivel as Insightful?
Those news sources are totally not right leaning.
It's beyond comprehension how somebody could claim that they are.
This is pathetic.
How did a comment so wrong get modded up here at SN?
(Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Sunday June 14 2015, @07:20AM