Hillary Clinton Promotes the TPP in Singapore 11-17-2012

[madfloridian]

[Bucky]

1. Maybe she wasn't in a position to know the broad details

you know, what with all that diplomacy going on and keeping her busy.

[Hortensis]

15. Maybe being in Obama's cabinet required HRC to support HIS positions.

Actually, there is no "maybe" about it.

Not that I think for a minute that HRC is against America joining and taking leadership of this very large group. China will lead if we do not, and if we don't join, we don't even have a vote. Zero influence on its decisions. HRC also, of course, will not not like many of its provisions, whatever they are. That's a given, the simple truth. I'm sure Obama and Kerry will not like all of them either.

And, no, FWIW, I also don't like the TPP because of outsize Big Money influence on it, but there are more than 1 or 2, or 10, ways to lose jobs and all the rest at stake.

[sabrina 1]

16. The major reason for opposing this awful, sovereign nation destroying 'legislation' has little to do

with what's in it, because when Global Corps get to write legislation for Sovereign nations, while their elected officials are DENIED participation in the writing of that legislation, it is already TOO FAR GONE to be ag about what's in it. WE KNOW don't we that Global Corps are going to write OUR laws to BENEFIT THEM.

So the first order of business is to REJECT this terrible handing over our sovereignty to Global Entities.

Hillary is trying to deflect for that, which why a vast majority of people oppose it, by claiming to be a 'bit concerned about what's in it'.

That's like accepting a package you know is likely to explode while saying you are 'concerned that there might be a few things in there you might not like'.

What you do when offered such a package is to REFUSE IT totally.

[Hortensis]

19. Nothing's ever that simple, Sabrina. International business isn't

like some coworker we can avoid by staying out of the lunch room.

[sabrina 1]

20. No it's not, that's why we need strong leaders when it comes to trade agreements, who will

first and foremost keep the interests of the American people in mind, which we have NOT had for quite some time, causing the current awful situation for America's working class, now worse off than ever before.

GLobal Crops should not be writing legislation for this or any other nation.

Elected Reps of the people should NOT be prevented from doing their jobs BY GLobal Corps.

It really is not all that complex.

Are we a sovereign nation or not?

Or are we an Oligarchy?

If the latter, they you are correct. It's a done deal, we have failed to use our power to enter into Global Trade Agreements that are beneificial to the American people, because our Government has been bought out by Corporate interests.

[Hortensis]

21. I understand what you want because I want it too. I think

you vastly overestimate the power of a president these days. Power has become diffused in a way it never was before, and books are being written about the continued dispersion of power among, not just huge interests, but many thousands of smaller power blocks. It certainly didn't help that We the People transferred vast amounts of our power to business over the past 40 years as part of the Reagan Revolution. That can't just be snatched right back; it's been entrenched in law that will take decades to reverse. FDR (and Francis Perkins and others) would not be able to accomplish now what he did then were he miraculously among us. The times are very different.

Obama is a stronger president than many realize because he is coolly and intelligently engaged in very complex stratagems to achieve what we want -- but there are tremendous limits on what he can accomplish in two presidential terms. Not only because of the dispersion of power, but also because what power he has must somehow be used to further many goals without causing severe damage to critical others in the process.

We can't ever have everything, and we certainly can't have everything now -- even if Bernie is all you believe him to be. BTW, if he and you want to hang all the "oligarchs" upside down, shake them down, and then toss them out of the country, that's fine with me. I'll be with you, but it will take real torches and real mobs to accomplish in less than a generation. They have the law and law enforcement on their side. They should. They've paid a lot over the last generation and more to transfer and secure their power.

That, by the way, is why I am supporting the Democratic Party's current frontrunner and current best chance to succeed to 8 more years of continuing the transfer of wealth and power back to the people. Like reversing a train, it's slow in the beginning, but stop and you lose all the momentum you've gained. Unlike that train, though, a GOP presidency will resume course backwards.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Bernie Never did and was First to tell us about it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Has she made up her mind about Coke or Pepsi yet? Still checking the labels for ingredients?

[emulatorloo]

4. I think maybe the TPP has 'evolved' since then

Not an HRC supporter, but I find it odd to see DU'ers arguing that changing your mind on an issue when you get new information is a bad thing. That is sort of how we all operate.

That is what makes us different than Republicans and other ideologues.

[zentrum]

11. I have a

…...question. How much more "information" do you need to "evolve" on marriage equality? It's an equal rights issue. Not an informational one.

The issue of marriage equality has been around for two decades—hasn't it?

I think it's that kind of glacial "evolution" that bothers us Bernie supporters. That she waits to see if a difficult position is becoming popular and acceptable and then, and only then, supports it.

[tex-wyo-dem]

12. +1

Yep

[emulatorloo]

14. Neither Bernie nor HRC is going to roll back marriage equality

Nor is O'Malley or Biden if he gets in. I can't say the same thing about the Republicans btw.

In the real world I know several people that took a long while to change their mind about marriage equality, especially older people. All that cultural brainwashing and conservative religious propaganda they grew up with was a lot for them to overcome.

Personally I'm happy those people saw the light.

IMHO DU'ers obsessing about who was there first is a about distinction not a difference. I think it is mostly DU melodrama and a waste of time if the goal is to get Bernie the nomination.

I certainly don't see Bernie or his campaign bogged down in this.

There are lots of differences between HRC and Bernie that are more significant for real world voters.

[Metric System]

5. As SOS.

[Metric System]

8. Also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership_n_7173108.html

http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton

[AtomicKitten]

6. She was for it before she was against it.

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Cables Show Hillary Clinton's State Department Deeply Involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership
http://www.ibtimes.com/cables-show-hillary-clintons-state-department-deeply-involved-trans-pacific-2032948

Hillary Clinton's Record of Advocacy and Support of the TPP
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/17/1393899/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Record-of-Advocacy-and-Support-of-the-TPP

[aspirant]

7. Now is the time for all her

endorsers to publicly state they are with HRC and will be voting NO on TPP.

Let's go Hillary, round them up.

[DhhD]

9. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of DU. DU is good at looking behind the curtain.

2012, is the same year Clinton worked to privatize the National Oil Industry of Mexico never caring about the unions of Mexican workers and their ancestor's sacrifice of serving in one of the most important revolutions of the world in which the oil industry was finally turned over to the workers in 1938. So Clinton cares for the American workers who will be competing against 57 cents an hour workers in the TPP partner, Vietnam. I do not think so.

[madfloridian]

10. I think it is politically expedient.

Thanks for the info about Mexico.

[Historic NY]

13. Perhaps she was doing what her Boss wanted......

after all she was select not elected to her position.

[reformist2]

17. Truthfully, she sounds like a robot to me.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

18. If she really was against it she could have quit as SOS. She does not need the job

And she has plenty of money

To me it is a character thing and it proves she has none