General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Will Take Clear Position On Trade When Deal Is Done, Her Campaign Says
What a load of crap. And everybody except for the most extreme Clinton sycophants know it. Read the comments after the article. There is one negative comment about HRC after another. And most of those comments are coming from liberals. Why can't she just come out and say what she thinks about TPP? Why wait until it's settled? Then it will be too late. She should be advocating for her position now when it matters. Or does she plan to come out against after it has passed? If so that would be a chicken shit position to have. We need to know now where she stands on this most important issue for American workers.
Contrast her evasions with Bernie Sanders who has never been afraid to take positions on controversial issues. What a breath of fresh air Bernie is. Bernie is just what this country needs at this pint in its history. Bernie will make a great president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/14/hillary-clinton-trade-dea_n_7580112.html
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She will be criticized no matter what.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)First of all the final TPP doesn't exist. They are currently voting on three different preliminary pieces of legislation. Its extremely complicated and few understand the full implications.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)issues. The fact that it is complicated and a hot potato has not stopped Bernie from making his position perfectly clear. And of course she will get criticism. But doesn't that come with the territory when you run for president? If she can't deal with criticism now how is she going to deal with it if she becomes president?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hillary will never do that.
totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)Where are you getting that from? Please link to a statement he made which is tantamount to ranting and raving. Or is this just another cheap shot from a Clinton supporter?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a dishonest tactic that's becoming more common on DU as his popularity increases.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)nomination thinks? It matters because if she becomes president she will be the one who either signs or doesn't sign bills like this. Whether we support or oppose TPP we need to know where she stands because that will influence our vote in the primaries. I need to know the positions of both Bernie and Hillary on this important issue and so far I only know Bernie's position.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You do realize that as former SOS Hillary is still under oath on many things, one of which is the TPP. She is bound by that oath until it is released for all to see. Bernie and his supporters can bait her until the cows come home but I guarantee you, she will never break that oath. Imagine the penalties and the cost to not only to her political career but to her personally.
frylock
(34,825 posts)thx
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I am not sure if her speech is up in it's entirety anywhere yet. I know she talked about trade. She has also said in the past that she has been for some trade agreements and been against some but has to wait until the TPP is out before she can make any decision on what must be revised or thrown out of it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Her position is not to be for or against it, until it is passed. At which point she may be for or against it, depending on which side of the fence her statistics team says will be beneficial. After that she may be for or against it, depending on how the wind blows. Very solid stance for a potential leader of the free world
frylock
(34,825 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and she sure thought she knew enough about it to endorse it a few short months ago. btw, everytime you pretend that she's waiting to see what's in it, I'll post proof that you're.....
Yet, previously as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."
totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)her? And if she can't state her position because of an oath she took then she needs ask to be released from that oath now. When she decided to run for president she should have taken care of that formality right away so she would be free to speak on all issues. Or is she hiding behind that technicality so that she can keep her positions secret? If so that's not the kind of person I want to be president.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You are making up everything in your post to support your position and candidate. As has been pointed out, this is the biggest problem with HRC and is mirrored in many of her supporters. Rather than just admit that she is for this trade deal, you make up positions for her to avoid confronting whether to support a candidate that supports the TPP.
Everyone on the planet knows that HRC is avoiding taking a position on the TPP despite the fact that every other political animal on the planet is able and willing to take a position. She is deliberately avoiding taking a position rather than deliberately taking a position.
To avoid taking a position and to defend her not taking a position, we are hearing weak arguments such as she does not know whats in the final agreement. However, even if she wanted to tie her final position to the end result, its possible to take a position on principles she would accept or not accept. For example, she can say at this point without any problem, I will support or not support the TPP if it contains corporate tribunals. This is what a candidate who is trying to actually inform their voters does.
With respect to this "oath" it is totally made up. The TPP is classified which would mean that she might not be able to release specific language or details of the agreement. However, she can support or not support the concepts that could be embedded in the agreement like every other politician, senator, corporate adviser who has seen the classified agreement and supports it or does not support it. Giving a position of support or lack of support is not subject to an Oath or Classification.
Since all the bases of the Democratic Party are against the TPP, the only reason for the HRC dance around this issue is because she is for it but does not want to say. I would have more respect for her if she just took a position even if I disagreed whole heatedly with that position.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)She has a lot of influence.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)But she cold certainly express a position and be 'general' enough so as not to cause legal problems for herself.
BTW, that whole secrecy thing is enough reason to be against it if and until....
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Autumn
(44,748 posts)A simple yes I think it's a good idea or a No I do not support it would be allowed. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke. She is no longer SOS and is allowed to have an opinion without giving away any details.
rocktivity
(44,555 posts)On the other hand, should she take a position on it if nobody really knows what's in it?
And I think that "Should the deal be done at all?" is an extremely legitimate question to ask her.
rocktivity
totodeinhere
(13,034 posts)There is plenty to comment on now even if we don't know exactly what is in it. The secrecy in and of itself should be sufficient for her to come out against it. O'Malley and Sanders both know enough about it to come out against it. Why doesn't she?
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Yes, that's exactly why she should take a position on it. And her position should be 100% in opposition to it.
In fact, everybody in the US should be opposed to this stinky turd of a trade agreement. Or any other proposed piece of legislation that they want to push in secret. If they can't or won't tell us what's in it, it can only be because they don't want us to know, and that can only be because they know we'd get out the pitchforks, tar and feathers if we found out.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"...as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
cali
(114,904 posts)hasn't seen and therefore is taking the oh so reasonable position of waiting. Sick of the dishonesty
Autumn
(44,748 posts)Yes it's not complete yet but as SOS she has a good idea what it's about and can take a stand one way or the other without compromising her knowledge of the details. That she won't take a stand on this issue is very disappointing and leads me to believe she supports it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We may have to improve on some aspects."
Rilgin
(787 posts)You should keep a link on this short post to show how predictive you are when she uses almost identical language later.