Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Obama the slave master.

Posts: 21,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 11:09:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why does Obama care so much about the Myanmar slaveowners?

On Friday night, in an impressive display of dysfunction, the U.S. Senate approved a controversial trade bill with a provision that the White House, Senate leadership and the author of the language himself wanted taken out.

The provision, which bars countries that engage in slavery from being part of major trade deals with the U.S., was written by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). At the insistence of the White House, Menendez agreed to modify his language to say that as long as a country is taking "concrete" steps toward reducing human trafficking and forced labor, it can be part of a trade deal. Under the original language, the country that would be excluded from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership pact is Malaysia.

But because the Senate is the Senate, it was unable to swap out the original language for the modification. (The chamber needed unanimous consent to make the legislative move, and an unknown senator or senators objected.) So the trade promotion authority bill that passed Friday includes the strong anti-slavery language, which the House will now work to take out to ensure that Malaysia (and, potentially, other countries in the future) can be part of the deal.
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Re: the dysfunctional part, no surprise there.

Anyway, I think we should go in there with guns blazing. Obama could be another Abe Lincoln.

It's ironic isn't it. First black president and all. If this goes viral, you'll see an Obama about face right quick.

This isn't civil war era slavery from what I can tell. Based on what I've read it's more likely "debt bondage", where the worker traveled to Malaysia, assuming debt as part of a deal to get there, and then is trapped trying to pay that debt down. This is significantly different than 19th century slavery, where you were literally kidnapped and handled with chains and whips. To argue otherwise belittles slaves who went through that.

I would like to understand the contractual arrangement that is occurring in these cases, but unfortunately, the reporting seems to mysteriously leave that information out, despite that being the most important thing. That works great for the media and politicians, though.

Also, my understanding is that nobody has made any link between trade/tariff levels and the impact on human trafficking, so the slavery wording comes across as a general attack on free trade.

And the ultimate irony is this: some on the left attack TPP because they view it as a "free trade" agreement, when it is nothing of the sort. Government "trade" agreements are ALWAYS about trade restriction.