Clinton Opposes Lame Duck Vote on TPP

[MineralMan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-does-not-back-obama-trade-vote-in-post-election-congressional-session/2016/05/05/ce94f76e-12d7-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

So, there you go, folks.

Hillary Clinton has signaled that if she is elected president in November she would oppose a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord during a lame-duck session of Congress, sharpening her differences with President Obama as he is ramping up his sales pitch on behalf of the deal.

Clinton, the Democratic pres­idential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”

[DemonGoddess]

1. K&R!

Thank you MineralMan

Maybe now, some people can give it a rest, yes?

[pangaia]

2. Why doesn't she just oppose a vote now?

What does being the president-elect have to do with it?

[MoonRiver]

4. Maybe because she has no power to control votes right now?

Obama is still President after all.

[pangaia]

5. He is still president after the election also.

[MoonRiver]

6. She will begin to fulfill her roll as President after being sworn in.

Before that point she has little power.

[MineralMan]

11. She did. Did you read the excerpt in the OP. She said, and I quote:

“I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”

She put that in writing. What more would you have her do?

[yeoman6987]

26. Sign it in blood. /sarc

[pangaia]

50. Oppose the vote.. the vote...

[Renew Deal]

52. It's not coming up for a vote until after the election

[AntiBank]

3. good for her

[thesquanderer]

7. If that's her position, I wonder why all her committee members voted against putting it in the platform?

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512234730

I am more than a little suspicious of the interpretation, i.e. the article's headline "Clinton does not back Obama trade vote in post-election congressional session" and your own headline "Clinton Opposes Lame Duck Vote on TPP" as--as far as I can tell--the article does not actually say that. They even start the story by saying it is something she "signaled" not something she has "said." What she *said* appears to be simply: “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.” Everything beyond that is editorial interpretation and extrapolation. For example, she could easily say that, personally, she is against it, but she feels that Obama is entitled to have a vote on it during his last session if that's what he wants. That is completely consistent with her quote, yet also the exact opposite of the article's headline and your own headline.

And this wouldn't be the first time that WAPO put out a story with a headline not supported by the facts contained in the article.

Hillary is well experienced at saying things that can be interpreted in different ways depending on what you want to read into it. A news organization should be more careful.

(As an aside, this whole take on things also assumes that, if Congress votes during the lame duck session, TPP will simply pass. Although that is indeed likely the case, I'm not sure it is a foregone conclusion. For one thing, it may depend somewhat on who wins the election in November.)

[MineralMan]

9. Because platforms are about future directions. Specifics about a pending

bill or agreement don't really belong in the platform. The platform is an outline for the future, not about a previous administration. That's why.

[PoliticAverse]

48. That's a specious argument. Whether a pending bill is approved or not is about "future direction".

[riversedge]

65. HRC: “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.” Enough

[HumanityExperiment]

8. 'Hillary Clinton has signaled'...

we need more than 'signals' we need commitment, we need a law

until that 'signal' changes to a commitment on paper, that's all it is.. a 'signal' that lacks any commitment to action or to a law

[MineralMan]

10. Who says? Who are "we?"

Besides, the platform is no commitment at all. It's nothing more than an outline for future things. Presidents will do as they please, platform or no platform.

Clinton has "signaled" her opposition on numerous occasions. That's enough for me, even though I have no firm position on TPP, frankly. International trade is a complex subject about which I have little knowledge.

[HumanityExperiment]

13. 'That's enough for me'...

that's your 'threshold' not mine... I expect and demand more that's the difference and the 'we' you mention, there are millions of like minded folks like myself

We voted more on principle than just for person, I'm surprised you still don't get that...

[MineralMan]

14. You can "expect and demand" whatever you wish.

You have one vote, just like the rest of us. Again, you use the word "we." Unless you're voting for others, you are an individual, and represent only yourself.

[HumanityExperiment]

16. We are a movement...

so there is that... convention should be fun

[MineralMan]

17. Well, I wish I could have afforded to make a try to be a delegate

at the national convention. It's one of the things I haven't done that's on my imaginary bucket list. I'm sure it will be fun. Making history often is.

You are an individual, not a movement. You may believe you are aligned with a movement, but cannot speak for it. Nobody elected or appointed you as the spokesperson for any movement. You are speaking as an individual, as are we all.

Again, you have one vote. I recommend that you cast that vote for Hillary Clinton in November. You could make the difference, although that appears to be unlikely.

[leftofcool]

18. Sorry kiddo, The Party Platform is like Miss Congeniality

[think]

29. Actions speak louder than words. Sorry. Signaling doesn't mean jack.....

[MineralMan]

12. Paper? Read the second paragraph of the excerpt in the OP.

Read it closely this time, if you don't mind.

Clinton, the Democratic pres­idential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”

[HumanityExperiment]

15. again...

still a 'signal' that lacks any enforcement nor legislative action, the St. Louis platform meeting sent all the 'signal' needed

'That became clear last weekend in St. Louis, when the platform drafting committee -- which includes just five Sanders appointees -- shot down a TPP plank. According to several committee members, the president personally spoke to the drafting committee's chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and the White House did more outreach to make sure that Clinton appointees who might otherwise oppose TPP did not write that into the platform. But on Friday, as Democrats debated Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-Minn.) strong anti-TPP plank, Clinton allies and DNC appointees were blunt. To change the language would be to undermine the president.

"The vast majority of Democrats in the House will not vote for the [TPP]," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, a Clinton appointee. "That's really not the point. I haven't voted for a trade agreement since I joined the Congress in 1993. Having said that, there are Democrats who believe in the trade agreement. I could say to them: You're not important. I could say that. I've done that in the past. But what I don't want to do is leave this place disregarding the position of the President of the United States."

How's that for a signal?

If HRC is embracing Obama in GE then her appointees at that platform meeting 'signaled' all I need to know of her real stance

[leftofcool]

19. Then don't vote for her.

It's simple really. You can vote for her or not regardless of her platform which by the way, won't be sanders.

[timmymoff]

20. ok

[choie]

54. Shoot- can't we have a discussiion

And/or disagreement about her supposed policies without accusations? We're allowed to question Clinton, we don't have to march in lock step with her just because she's the nominee.

[leftofcool]

62. Nobody asked you to.

Hillary said she opposed the TPP. So what the hell more do you want?

[choie]

63. Signaling isn't a commitment

As has been said before. That's "what the hell" I want.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. You want Hillary to pass a law opposing tpp?

???

[MineralMan]

24. Interesting, isn't it.

At this time, Hillary Clinton does not hold any government office, so can't do anything of the sort, of course. She can only state her opinion, which she did, as quoted in the initial post in this thread.

Looks to me like she has stated her opposition to passing TPP during Obama's administration. Clearly stated it.

I'm not sure what more people would have her do at this point. She holds no office.

[think]

51. Interesting how everyone KNOWS Bernie Sanders is against the TPP but hardly anyone knows Clinton is

[MineralMan]

53. It is interesting, given how easy it is to Google

her position on TPP. Maybe it's a matter of convenience or something...

[think]

55. Is that how leadership works?

[TwilightZone]

58. Except that she's said so about half a dozen times.

It's not her fault that you're being intentionally obtuse.

[think]

59. I know because I read. Yet even here on DU I've needed to remind people where she stands

So perhaps Hillary needs to say it a few more times so more of her supporters get the message....

[HumanityExperiment]

40. what do you not get about supporting DEM principles within trade agreements?

instill trade agreements with liberal/progressive principles should be the goal is it not?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. I didn't get your comment about a law should be passed

It literally made zero sense so I asked you to clarify

[HumanityExperiment]

45. I figured as much...

convention will be fun

[La Lioness Priyanka]

46. Umm ok.

[HumanityExperiment]

49. exactly...

you're clearly going to defend your candidate regardless of facts presented on this TPP issue, the St. Louis platform meet showed where establishment DEMs stand

Getting folks like yourself to address the facts and prevent this very bad trade agreement from moving forward is comical to watch you all try to defend it, the facts show how bad it is, but yet you will continue to defend it because establishment has staked it's political expediency to it

[choie]

57. Its the "my candidate right or wrong"

syndrome. Happened with Obama and it's happening again.

[HumanityExperiment]

60. agreed

n/t

[thesquanderer]

37. And really, she didn't truly "signal" this at all. That's a selective interpretation.

Please see post #7

[jack_krass]

56. +1

[pampango]

23. Even Obama wants a vote before the election. Congressional republicans seem afraid to anger

Trump and his supporters. If they thought an early vote was good for republicans and bad for Democrats, they would do it. Apparently they think the opposite is true.

[yallerdawg]

25. Another Democratic perspective - from our Democratic president:

On Tuesday, The Washington Post published an op-ed article by Obama in which he stated that he empathized with “the skepticism people have about trade agreements, particularly in communities where the effects of automation and globalization have hit workers and families the hardest.”

But, he continued, “building walls to isolate ourselves from the global economy would only isolate us from the incredible opportunities it provides.”

[MineralMan]

30. I haven't actually formed an opinion about TPP.

I'm not well enough informed about international trade and trade agreements to do so. That's one of the areas where I leave the decisions to people who are better informed than I am. The TPP is an enormously long document with sections that affect may things. It's simply not an area of expertise for me, and I don't have any inclination to school myself on it.

No doubt, it will have a mixed set of effects on our economy, trade, labor and many other issues. But, I simply do not have the knowledge to interpret that those effects might be.

I've read plenty of commentary on it, and remain in an undecided position. Obama wants it. Clinton doesn't. It's up in the air, and I don't know enough to form a solid opinion on it. I'm guessing that it would help in some ways and hurt in others. I just don't know.

So, others will decide. I'm forced to pass on speaking about the TPP in any specific way. I suppose we'll either pass it or dump it, and we'll see the results of either decision over a long period of time. I simply can't predict its effects.

[ismnotwasm]

27. Huh

Here is the thing that gets me. The TPP is very problematic in a number of areas from what I've read but without it we have basically have NAFTA. We have to have trade deals, we are not an isolationist country--to say the least-- and all the anti-trade verbiage seems odd to me at best. I suspect Hillary has her own ideas on what the final product should look like--or what an entirely new set of negotiations will entail. If the TPP is scaped, do you think new Trade Deals will use the acceptable elements of it to facilitate speed in signing? It's been in negotiation for 10 years. Hillary won't be president in 10 years. I'd like to see a Democrat at the helm during any major trade agreement.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, we have to have trade deals. We engage in

international trade. But, I don't understand international trade well enough to form a good estimate of the effects of any trade agreement, particularly one as large as this one.

I have to punt on this. But, we will have trade agreements. We're not an isolationist nation. We can't be.

[ismnotwasm]

33. Yeah I don't understand them either

I can read a bit, listen a bit--I don't like hyperbole in these matters so I try to pick sensible sources. All I know is any set of trade agreements include delicate negotiations and take a while to hammer out. Seems like open markets should be a good thing economically for the world with proper environmental and workers protection rights--as well as regulation of product safety---regulation of any sort being the bug in the works, apparently.

[MineralMan]

34. The TPP is a 12-state agreement. I would imagine that

there is always a lot of give and take in any such agreement. Anything that 12 nations have to agree on is likely to look pretty muddy by the time it has reached a final form. It's sort of amazing that any such agreements are ever completed, it seems to me.

I suppose I could wade through it, if I wanted to spend the time, but I still wouldn't know why any particular section is in there, or which country wanted it to be in there for some reason.

It's all too freaking complicated for real comprehension by any individual, really. Opponents tend to look for language that appears to grant some sort of privilege to someone they don't like. Proponents look for language that appears to benefit someone they do like.

I just don't know what the effects of it will be, and I don't suppose that anyone else does either. If it is ratified by all 12 countries and goes into effect, a few years from now we'll see what it does and how it works. After a time, it will end up being re-negotiated to compensate for negative effects, I imagine.

Things like the TPP will never be positive for everyone. They can't be, because everyone participating gets some provisions that have negative impacts on others, but that are balanced in some way by other provisions. Very complex. Very arcane. Very confusing for those of us not involved in such international trade.

[ismnotwasm]

36. Yup

I was reading a fictional story that included a diplomat involved in complex negotiations. I may need to pursue that route for understanding.

Good historical fiction (or VERY good non-fiction) can help me make sense of issues I have no education in, because it creates relatable characters I can like or dislike. Probably has something to do with how I think, I guess.



On edit--I am trying to wade through the treaty--but it's like philosophy, if you don't understand the language, you miss most of what is valuable

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Yikes.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. I approve of this position.

[MineralMan]

32. That appears to be her position, and has been for some time.

I'll be voting for her. What will happen with TPP, I can't say. It's not in an area where I have enough information to take any position, really. Opinions on its value or detriment vary widely among international trade experts. I'm going to have to punt on this one.

Since it needs Congressional approval, it will be up to our legislators to decide. I vote for legislators, too.

[Rex]

35. So do I. I approve of this position.

[MineralMan]

38. Well, it's Clinton's position.

That's about all I can say. From what I was reading here, I thought maybe she was for it, while Bernie Sanders was against it. It turns out that they have the same position on TPP, just as they do on so many things.

So, I went and looked up what she had said, and found the article at the link above. Settles it for me. I'm personally ambivalent about TPP. Trade agreements are almost always messy, since they require so much give and take among the participating nations. I imagine that good and bad things could be found in any of them.

It's not my area of interest, in any case. I'm supporting Clinton for President. Her opinion on this is not the basis for my support, nor is her opinion on any individual subject. I was just looking to clarify where she stands for people.

[Rex]

39. Another good reason to vote for her imo.

She has the experience to know if a trade deal is good or bad for America, imo.

[MineralMan]

41. True enough. I trust her on this one.

There are many good reasons to vote for her, principal among which is that she's a Democrat. We need a Democrat in the White House to prevent a broad range of bad things from happening.

That's how I feel about it, anyhow.

[Rex]

42. Well Trump would ruin this country imo, he is the worst thing to come along since Dubya.

And, somehow, he would mess this country up worse then Bush-Cheney imo. We need to make sure HRC gets into office.

[MineralMan]

43. Yup. That's what I'll be working toward, for sure.

[msongs]

47. trade deals are written by and for corporations. "people" are not a consideration in any of them nt

[MineralMan]

61. What does that have to do with Clinton's stated opposition to the TPP?

I made a very simple post about that. She has stated her opposition, but nobody seems to give her any credit for that.

[bemildred]

64. “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.” nt