HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Clinton's opposition to t...

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:06 PM

 

Clinton's opposition to the TPP is insulting

n October, Hillary Clinton announced in an interview that she was no longer supporting the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. This came as a big surprise to many as she was a strong supporter for the deal before coming out against it. Jake Tapper identified 45 times where Hillary Clinton pushed for the deal before finally opposing it. As a progressive and a strong opponent of the TPP, shouldn't I be pleased that Hillary Clinton is finally opposing this disastrous trade deal?

But the answer is no. I am not pleased at all by that announcement. And don't get me wrong… this has nothing to do with her evolving on the issue. I know some people are sensitive to her evolving, but progressives fight every day to change people's views. I would be glad if she actually evolved on it but I don't believe her and here is why:

1. Hillary made the announcement less than a week before the first debate. The TPP was one of the main issues that her two main challengers, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, were hammering her with. Also, Sanders poll numbers were rising especially in Iowa and New Hampshire and started to become a real threat for the nomination. Agreeing with him on this issue would defuse a potential heated argument in the first debate that could hurt her chances. The very same can be said about her last minute opposition to the Keystone pipeline which she previously supported.

2. It was one of the main reasons that prevented many unions from endorsing her. The largest union, AFL-CIO, delayed its endorsement to put pressure on Hillary to oppose the TPP. The union's president, Richard Trumka, made it clear that opposing the TPP was important to gain the union's support.

3. Hillary Clinton stated that she wouldn't lobby or rally against the TPP. She would only state her position. Since she's not a member in the Congress, her position means absolutely nothing to defeat the TPP. In fact, she has the endorsement of the vast majority of democrats in the Congress, including those who voted to Fast Track it. This makes her the best person positioned to rally democrats to defeat it. However, she chooses to stay put and do absolutely nothing.

<snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/4/1456985/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Opposition-to-the-TPP-Is-Not-Wrong-It-s-Insulting

And another very good article on this subject from TPP expert Dave Johnson

<snip, snip, snip>


The Test

Is Clinton really opposed to TPP? Or is she only saying this to get votes, ready to turn against Democrats on trade issues after the election, as too many others have done?

There is a test for that: What is Clinton willing to actually do to stop TPP? Actions vs. words. If she means what she is saying about reversing inequality, unrigging the system and restoring the path to a middle class the first thing she should be doing is fighting and fighting hard to stop TPP.

Will she actively and boldly lobby against TPP, calling and visiting and working to convince the representatives and senators who voted for fast-track trade authority to vote against TPP?

Will she appear at anti-TPP rallies? Will she speak out again and again at her own campaign events? Will she express opposition on radio and TV interviews? Will she work to rally the media and public in opposition?

<snip>
http://seeingtheforest.com/does-clinton-really-oppose-tpp-there-is-a-test-for-that/

Clinton doesn't really oppose the TPP. She is documented as a fervent supporter, and not just when she was SoS. She praised it to the sky in her most recent book, written AFTER she left State. Her feeble and contemptuous faux opposition is a temporary political calculation. She'll be supporting it again in no time. And she hasn't said or done one thing to actually oppose it.

It's typical behavior from Clinton, and as the kos diarist said it's insulting.

194 replies, 13532 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton's opposition to the TPP is insulting (Original post)
cali Dec 2015 OP
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #1
cali Dec 2015 #2
Maedhros Dec 2015 #5
Bubzer Dec 2015 #34
jeff47 Dec 2015 #55
Bubzer Dec 2015 #112
whathehell Dec 2015 #128
lewebley3 Dec 2015 #177
lewebley3 Dec 2015 #178
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2015 #3
upaloopa Dec 2015 #4
cali Dec 2015 #8
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #149
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #159
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #181
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #187
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #188
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #189
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #190
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #191
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #192
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #193
ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2015 #194
cascadiance Dec 2015 #166
randome Dec 2015 #168
Amimnoch Dec 2015 #179
floriduck Dec 2015 #26
MaggieD Dec 2015 #31
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #39
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #64
liberalmike27 Dec 2015 #130
Paka Dec 2015 #6
840high Dec 2015 #22
arcane1 Dec 2015 #7
ibegurpard Dec 2015 #9
UglyGreed Dec 2015 #11
brooklynite Dec 2015 #141
UglyGreed Dec 2015 #165
JaneyVee Dec 2015 #10
ibegurpard Dec 2015 #12
JaneyVee Dec 2015 #17
Armstead Dec 2015 #92
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #96
Armstead Dec 2015 #122
DonCoquixote Dec 2015 #113
Recursion Dec 2015 #118
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #161
eridani Dec 2015 #116
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #180
MaggieD Dec 2015 #13
Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #19
MaggieD Dec 2015 #21
Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #23
MaggieD Dec 2015 #30
Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #36
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #37
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #49
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #61
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #63
Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #78
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #86
Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #89
Nitram Dec 2015 #123
MaggieD Dec 2015 #52
philosslayer Dec 2015 #50
MaggieD Dec 2015 #54
nyabingi Dec 2015 #147
MaggieD Dec 2015 #148
nyabingi Dec 2015 #150
MaggieD Dec 2015 #152
cascadiance Dec 2015 #167
asjr Dec 2015 #137
Art_from_Ark Dec 2015 #24
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #40
MaggieD Dec 2015 #41
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #42
MaggieD Dec 2015 #43
AlbertCat Dec 2015 #46
MaggieD Dec 2015 #57
Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #79
Armstead Dec 2015 #93
senz Dec 2015 #100
jalan48 Dec 2015 #14
tazkcmo Dec 2015 #15
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #16
stupidicus Dec 2015 #18
navarth Dec 2015 #160
in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #20
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2015 #28
in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #62
Agony Dec 2015 #82
Broward Dec 2015 #25
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2015 #32
Autumn Dec 2015 #27
Doctor_J Dec 2015 #29
Enthusiast Dec 2015 #120
WillyT Dec 2015 #33
MuseRider Dec 2015 #35
LS_Editor Dec 2015 #38
Jarqui Dec 2015 #44
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2015 #45
philosslayer Dec 2015 #47
senz Dec 2015 #103
philosslayer Dec 2015 #110
senz Dec 2015 #111
ibegurpard Dec 2015 #115
Autumn Dec 2015 #129
philosslayer Dec 2015 #131
Autumn Dec 2015 #134
philosslayer Dec 2015 #135
Autumn Dec 2015 #136
philosslayer Dec 2015 #138
Autumn Dec 2015 #142
philosslayer Dec 2015 #145
immoderate Dec 2015 #157
cascadiance Dec 2015 #169
Phlem Dec 2015 #48
UglyGreed Dec 2015 #53
Phlem Dec 2015 #56
UglyGreed Dec 2015 #66
hootinholler Dec 2015 #51
AtomicKitten Dec 2015 #58
AzDar Dec 2015 #59
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #65
AzDar Dec 2015 #67
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #76
AzDar Dec 2015 #88
Phlem Dec 2015 #71
Phlem Dec 2015 #60
gordyfl Dec 2015 #68
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #70
Phlem Dec 2015 #73
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #77
Phlem Dec 2015 #81
gordyfl Dec 2015 #85
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #90
Phlem Dec 2015 #91
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #94
senz Dec 2015 #106
Duval Dec 2015 #163
senz Dec 2015 #105
cascadiance Dec 2015 #170
jfern Dec 2015 #69
jeff47 Dec 2015 #72
Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #80
Phlem Dec 2015 #84
cali Dec 2015 #83
Broward Dec 2015 #87
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #97
jeff47 Dec 2015 #99
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #102
jeff47 Dec 2015 #108
cascadiance Dec 2015 #171
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #174
cascadiance Dec 2015 #175
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #182
cascadiance Dec 2015 #183
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #184
cascadiance Dec 2015 #185
yallerdawg Dec 2015 #186
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #74
Phlem Dec 2015 #75
SixString Dec 2015 #95
senz Dec 2015 #98
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #101
cali Dec 2015 #146
davidpdx Dec 2015 #104
senz Dec 2015 #107
McCamy Taylor Dec 2015 #109
Betty Karlson Dec 2015 #114
slipslidingaway Dec 2015 #117
Enthusiast Dec 2015 #119
LuvNewcastle Dec 2015 #121
retrowire Dec 2015 #124
raouldukelives Dec 2015 #125
UglyGreed Dec 2015 #132
Live and Learn Dec 2015 #126
Le Taz Hot Dec 2015 #127
djean111 Dec 2015 #133
SHRED Dec 2015 #139
Doctor_J Dec 2015 #140
brooklynite Dec 2015 #143
firebrand80 Dec 2015 #144
cali Dec 2015 #164
cascadiance Dec 2015 #172
EndElectoral Dec 2015 #151
leftofcool Dec 2015 #153
cali Dec 2015 #156
fbc Dec 2015 #154
sammythecat Dec 2015 #155
kenfrequed Dec 2015 #158
cali Dec 2015 #162
cascadiance Dec 2015 #173
Segami Dec 2015 #176

Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:23 PM

1. A very compelling case you make

 

that Hillary is doing what Hillary does best: lying her ass off only to get votes.

The fact that the AFL-CIO is apparently naive enough to believe her faux
"opposition" to the TPP is beyond the pale, and doesn't bode wall for the future
of the Labor Movement in the US..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:27 PM

2. I don't think unions are naive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:36 PM

5. It's entirely possible that Union leadership is every bit as corrupt as Hillary. [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:54 PM

34. Or, this may actually be a stroke of brilliance!

What if unions are trying to force Hillary away from the TPP? Think about it... if she moves away from the TPP, what Democratic nominees will be left that are for it? None! So, the executive boards toss support her way in exchange for the abandonment of TPP, and they win no matter which Dem wins. It might explain away the odd endorsements for hillary, and the unusual levels of dissent within the union membership. Its also possible this is way off base, but I figure since we're tossing out ideas, might as well give voice to that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:44 PM

55. Uh...The TPP will be law long before the election.

TPA removed the Filibuster from it. And legally, it's "a series of executive actions" instead of a treaty, so it only needs a simple majority to pass.

It's going to pass long before election day. Which makes Clinton's "oppose but won't do anything about it" all the more disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:19 AM

112. Ugh...I hope you're wrong. The TPP needs to be shitcanned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #112)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:46 AM

128. +100. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:32 PM

177. Union leadership is just fine: the GOP are corrupt: Hillary

 


Is the better choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:33 PM

178. No compelling case: the OP post is just a Sanders supporter

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:31 PM

3. BEYOND insulting!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 07:35 PM

4. If I remember correctly you were calling Hillary out

to give her position on TPP and mocking her saying "she will let us know when she is elected" or something to that effect.


It makes no difference to some people what she says because they have their agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:10 PM

8. Why yes, I didn't imagine she'd be so shamelessly cynical

 

and contemptuous. I gave her more credit than she deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:01 PM

149. Never let facts get in the way of your spittle-flecked hatred, do you?

Hillary doing what you oppose: Hillary is evil

Hillary doing what you want: Hillary is shamelessly cynically evil




The funny thing is that I think the TPP is pretty good, and am slightly disappointed that she's holding it to such a high standard. But I also see it's changed enough that someone could decide what came out of the final negotiation was no longer something they could support.

Anyway, keep up with your hatred. It's sadly amusing. Besides, you're going to do so anyway.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:27 PM

159. You want "Reality"?

The reality is that we have a long record of who she tends to support and a longer record too of people she takes campaign donations from.

The reality is that she came out against this thing only three weeks before the debates after saying she didn't like what she had heard about what was in it after she had been helping both in negotiating it AND in trumpeting the gold standards of the TPP.

The damned TPP even had been Improved from the leaked versions of it back from last spring! So she didn't like what she had heard about it with regards to drug monopolies after they had actually reduced the length of exclusive patenting on said medications???

That doesn't make sense.

Of course if you think the TPP is pretty good then I don't even have to question where your loyalties lie and I can easily imagine your satisfaction if Hillary manages to win the nomination and shifts back to the economic right on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #159)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:16 PM

181. You seem to imagine that Obama is on the "economic right"

I mean, it's your opinion and I won't argue with it too much, since that's all it is, but generally speaking, Obama is on the economic left. Maybe you mean "economic right of DUers". That would make sense.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #181)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 07:26 PM

187. Absurd

Clearly Obama is to the left of Hillary since the TPP was improved long after she left as secretary of state.

Nice try though trying to shift this to being about President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #187)

Thu Dec 10, 2015, 09:11 PM

188. Yes, you're being absurd

Hillary - Against the TPP
Obama - For it.

Now you're trying to say Hillary is to the economic right of Obama?!? Wow.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #188)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 04:25 PM

189. Yeah...

And today is Monday but if you read this tomorrow it will be Tuesday.

Hillary spent literally years working on the TPP. There are unending quotes of her trumpeting how wonderful it is.

She came out against it within three weeks of the first debate and she was only conditionally against it "based on what she had heard about it."

And the ironic thing is that the TPP had actually improved in the time that she had not been negotiating on it. So does this mean she is against the tepid improvements and wants it to go back to draconian protections for pharmaceuitical companes?

Face actual facts about this pact.


Hillary is to the right of Obama economically and always has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #189)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 05:28 PM

190. I can spend months looking to buy a house...

...but when it comes down to the actual counter-offer on a specific piece of property (not the concept of buying houses in general, or the idea that buying a house would be a good idea for me specifically), reject it.

Same thing for cars, business deals, and trade agreements.


So, starting right today, there is a trade agreement on the table. Obama is for it. Hillary is against. Those are the actual facts.

So if you think that actual trade agreement is economically to the right, you don't get to call Hillary Clinton to the right of Obama. To the right of Bernie? Sure. No question. He hates trade agreements. But not to the right of Obama. Period.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #190)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 05:41 PM

191. So...

You claim to be a part of the "reality based community" but the most cursory research is outside the scope of what you think is needed or what you are willing to take responsibility for?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #191)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 06:34 PM

192. Wow indeed, what a word salad from you

Again, you'd help yourself if you actually pointed out an area where Hillary is to the right of Obama. I think there are one or two. But in terms of the TPP in its final form, a topic which Sanders supporters think is most important, that example doesn't help you. It hurts. Because Hillary is against, Barack is for. Period.

And here's the thing. It's not up to me to "take responsibility for" doing "cursory research" to prove your utterly incorrect thesis. Reality based means both being able to cite facts and make logical inferences, neither of which you're doing right now.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Here's a hint. Look at willingness to use military force. But be careful there. Bernie has come out decidedly in favor of drones, so finding a 100% purity candidate might be difficult

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #192)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 06:43 PM

193. A few hints:

1: Most people that try to change the subject in mid discussion are trying to get out of that discussion. I frequently encounter it with conservatives that I have cornered in argumentation.

2: You are the one that decided to ignore previous positioning on trade agreements and her long history of negotiating this in order to pretend Hillary's decision to 'kind of be against what she heard about it' as some kind of informed position. (in 'reality' it was a shift she made before the debates to push the issue off the table. Everyone knows that.)

3: If you look back at 2008 on almost every issue President Obama ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. Was he able to accomplish what he wanted to? No, though I don't entirely blame him for this. But Hillary has been involved in the third way movement for a long time, and before that the DLC. She is a corporate democrat and her protestations about the TPP are without any trace of authenticity.

4: Taking one day where a candidate says one thing once and pretending that proves anything is the opposite of a researched, informed opinion.

5: I didn't expect you to "prove my point." I expect a voter that makes pretense at being informed to do research for their own decision making proces in a political campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #193)

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 07:52 PM

194. Okay, so basically you got nothing

...other than to repeat the assertion that she is, in general, in favor of trade agreements, and while acting as Secretary of State, a position which serves at the sole pleasure of the President of the United States, she repeatedly touted the promise of a well-negotiated TPP. (Prior to declaring that the actual TPP wasn't up to snuff. )

But I'm repeating myself about why this doesn't apply as a measure of Hillary's vs Obama's leftiness, even if I thought the TPP was bad, which frankly I'm not sure it is.

I'm having to because you're repeating yourself.

And you're repeating yourself because you got nothing. Not only in terms of positions, but actual facts and logic. By the way, I don't particularly care where you set the marker of "corporate democrat" (meaning, one presumes, a Democrat who believes in capitalism, as opposed to Socialist Sanders), so if you choose to call Hillary one, that's fine. You just need to call Barack Obama even "worse" of one then -- which given how well the US economy is chugging along under his leadership, I'm more than happy to cop to as well.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConservativeDemocrat (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 04:59 PM

166. We've been through this before... Did I "really want" NAFTA being "renegotiated"...

 

the way Obama so DISINGENUOUSLY proposed in the last election to get votes from us that were against NAFTA when he wanted to give us NAFTA on steroids instead as his HIGHEST priority legislation (where he's pushed harder on pushing it and all of its pieces than even what he pushed with ACA)?

We've been down this path before, and we know more in this election for the need to judge candidates by WHAT THEY DO and not just what they "say" they would do.

As the poster noted, she conveniently took the "anti-TPP" stance right before one of the few debates her lieutenant had us put in place and WAY beyond the time where such a stance could have actually DONE something to help us stop fast track legislation earlier where she was NOTABLY SILENT on that issue, which is NOT a position that a candidate for future president who would get fast track authority with that bill should be taking in my book, if she really wanted us to believe that she was against it.

She probably knew that a question would come up on TPP which is why she took this stance on it. She probably also knew that she wouldn't get questioned on issues like her stance on H-1B Visa program expansion which she hasn't changed or restated her support for since the last election when she was strongly FOR that program that works against the working middle class around the world to benefit those that want low cost indentured servants under it.

She only takes "stances" on things when her campaign staff knows she's going to get questioned on it in a forum they can't use the organization of how she faces questioners to help her avoid answering questions on such issues.

When she gets in to office, she won't be able to control situations like she's been able to do through the DNC and the way she's run her campaign. Secondly, Americans if they will vote for will get reminded on how who they voted for often times works more for the corporate insiders want they get elected, like Obama did when he quickly staffed his cabinet through the likes of Rahm Emanuel and worked for this free trade BULLSHIT then!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:17 PM

168. Really, cali? Going for hides already? You like sitting in the corner?

 

FYI, I voted to leave your post alone but I don't believe it's going to go your way.

But who can tell with juries?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #168)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:45 PM

179. Please don't hide Cali!

 

Nothing helps Hillary like her ravings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:45 PM

26. Don't we all! That includes you, loops. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:51 PM

31. So much for that prediction

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:02 PM

39. It makes no difference to some people what she says because they have their agenda.

 

Well, Hillary certainly will say anything to achieve HER agenda.

She's a fake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:53 PM

64. She's a weathervane. If she wins the nomination she'll flip flop again.

That's why people don't trust her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:24 AM

130. Exactly

Besides, she said something that sounded like "I sort of, maybe, think I couldn't support it now, at least in the way it's worded at this point in time, maybe sort of..." It was the lamest rejection I've seen.

Add to that, she supported it on air, and in speeches some 45 other times.

Hey I like the guys "Turd Way" symbol above, which is an insult to "Third Way," an organization of corportists that has molded the Democratic Party into this horrible thing, that is just like Republicans. They support a slightly higher, but not living wage, while supporting free-trading away good manufacturing jobs Americans once called their Dream, war without end and aggressive, invasive foreign policies, and corporate giveaways, and lower taxes on the rich. But hey, we kept all the gay, abortion, gun stuff y'all. That should make you lib-ruuuls happy, while we economically rape you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:06 PM

6. It's just Hillary being Hillary.

Behavior that old and that typical is so normal it fails to be insulting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paka (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:28 PM

22. ...+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:08 PM

7. Welcome back!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:10 PM

9. welcome back

Make sure you update your jury blacklist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:17 PM

11. I did not know there was

such a list. Never needed to think of such things before. I filled it up pretty quickly and wish I could become a Star member to get 10 more spots. Even here you can pay to have the juries on your side

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UglyGreed (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:24 PM

141. Why would you need to?

 

I've never blacklisted anyone from Jury service, nor have I ever had a post hidden.

Maybe its the content rather than the influence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #141)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 04:37 PM

165. I don't believe I've

ever read any personal attacks coming from you. On the other hand I don't pretend to go along with everything as some may do and I speak my mind. It's when people decide that since I may see something a bit different then they do they think it gives them carte blanche to attack me personally.

Guess what, I will give as good as I get and will defend myself from slander and personal attacks. I do find it funny my retorts are usually hidden while the initial personal attacks remain in view. It is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:14 PM

10. Trade agreements support millions of US jobs and contribute to GDP.

 

What kind of jobs is Bernie going to create?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:17 PM

12. ones that stay in this country?

And aren't subject to regulations being overturned by international trade tribunals?
Do you have a problem with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibegurpard (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:21 PM

17. America has won every single tribunal, and...

 

Has huge leverage. Also, trade supports American jobs. Exporting and importing. You can't force business to stay in America, but you can give them incentives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:06 AM

92. Free Trade agreements are anti-incentives to keep jobs here

 

Thats what they are all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:25 AM

96. A decade of negotiation...

to lose American jobs.

Couldn't we have done that in a day?

I suspect there is a little more to it than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #96)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:33 AM

122. A lot more to it than that

 

Its all about weakening those pesky things called laws and regulations and the ability of nations and localities to make them.

The only purpose is to create a uniform set of laws that benefit business and "markets" by removing "barriers to trade."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:00 AM

113. haha

thanks to the outsourcing Hillary supports, that leverage is GONE. Who do you expect to supply the levers, Wal-Mart? I will add that China seems very good about not letting their jobs be given away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:27 AM

118. Almost. We lost the "what is a catfish?" fight against Vietnam

Though the ruling was pretty much Pyrrhic for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:43 PM

161. You misunderstand

The US has been succesful in defeating most trade cases brought up to weaken our environmental and labor laws.

But the function of this kind of a trade agreement is actually to assure that developing nations keep their laws minimized and that corporations can exert power over them. Most corporate entities know that going after the US for these sorts of things would backfire extraordinarily. So generally, they don't.

This system maintains the "race to the bottom" in terms of regulation and labor costs. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 04:16 AM

116. Yes--in China n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:06 PM

180. Why am I not surprised to see you support the TPP which kills American jobs. In fact they

 

added a section to train those that lose their jobs. Of course the corporations that will make billions won't pay for the training, the lower 99% will pay. And to train for what? Flipping burgers?

You have to choose between supporting the corporations or the 99%. But I guess you've already chosen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:18 PM

13. You need to read her book - as I have told you before

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:25 PM

19. Some Hillary quotes about TPP

“I certainly believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership holds great benefits for Japan’s economy…. I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership is one way that could really enhance our relationship.”

— Newseum, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2013.

“We also discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and we shared perspectives on Japan’s possible participation, because we think this holds out great economic opportunities to all participating nations.

— On her meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, Washington, D.C. , Jan. 18, 2013.

“So it’s fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.

— Adelaide, South Australia, Nov. 15, 2012.

“There is new momentum in our trade agenda with the recent passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and our ongoing work on a binding, high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership, the so-called TPP. The TPP will bring together economies from across the Pacific, developed and developing alike, into a single 21st century trading community.”

— Honolulu, HI, Nov. 10, 2011.

“Economists expect that Vietnam would be among the countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership to benefit the most. And we hope to finalize this agreement by the end of the year.”

— With Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, Hanoi, Vietnam, July 10, 2012.

“Now, we’ve seen how bilateral trade benefits both sides. Our challenge now is to broaden those benefits. That means we have to look for even more opportunities to increase trade and investment between us. And it means that we work harder to broaden the benefits of trade even beyond our two countries. Australia is an important partner in negotiating the ambitious new multilateral trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Over time, we hope to deliver a groundbreaking agreement that connects countries as diverse as Peru and Vietnam with America and Australia to create a new free trade zone that can galvanize commerce, competition, and growth across the entire Pacific region.

— Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7, 2010.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/clintons-quotes-favoring-pacific-trade-pact-now-opposes/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:28 PM

21. You should have read her book....

 

The thing all these journalists and Hillary haters miss is that none of you have read her book. It was published a year and a half ago, and written at least 2 years ago. And she exhibits plenty of skepticism about the TPP there. Yes, TWO years ago.

As SOS she was cheerleading for her hopes for it, even while she was trying to assist the US Trade rep in getting things like the right of workers in signatory countries to organize into unions, and prohibitions against currency manipulation included in the agreement. Those two items alone would have made a world of difference for workers in every country signing on to it.

The right to unionize in Asian markets would have done more to level the playing field than any other trade agreement in the world between any country. Indeed it would have set the gold standard and precedent for existing and new trade agreements.

Currency manipulation hurts US workers tremendously because it makes imported goods costs artificially low and therefore US products less competitive.

When neither of those things (and others) made it in to the final agreement she stated she did not support it. And that is exactly what she said in her book written 2 years ago.

AND she voted against CAFTA while in the senate. So, given that a) she stated 2 years ago what she needed to see to support the final product, and b) she has a history of voting against trade bills, I don't think you can credibly claim she ended up not supporting it for reasons of political expediency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:33 PM

23. If she had had so much skepticism about it so long ago,

she should have come out against it before the TPA vote was a done deal.

And she did not actually come out against it-- she just said she "would not be in favor of it" given what she knows "today", but she won't even lobby against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:49 PM

30. She did - you just weren't paying attention

 

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can keep going on and on about this, but you forget:

1. The organizations that care about this issue (like union leadership) actually understand this issue, and her well thought out positions on what it takes to make a good trade agreement. Unions want their stuff sold in other countries too, and like her they understand what makes a good versus bad trade agreement. And union leaders are not stupid. None of you can seem to understand why they endorse her instead of him, but a good portion is that they get that she gets it. Hillary bashers don't get it, whether you don't want to, or for other reasons.

2. Most people (including me and lots of people I know) appreciate that she goes into great detail about the issue instead of the knee jerk Sanders / Warren wing of the party. Contrary to popular belief voters DO like being spoken to like adults who can understand issues. It's an excellent example of why she is often referred to as "the adult in the room."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:01 PM

36. Oh, for crying out loud

She never went on record as being against TPP until a week before the first debate, after the TPA vote was already in the bag. And even her "opposition" was typically mealy-mouthed, giving her an "out" by saying she "would not be in favor of it" instead of actually saying she outright opposes it. She is on record for promoting TPP dozens of times to different audiences, claiming it "sets a gold standard in trade agreements". And the concerns about TPP that were being expressed when she was calling it a gold standard are still concerns that are being expressed. She did not learn anything new about it-- she just saw which way the wind was blowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:01 PM

37. In case know one ever says it...

Your awesome!

Facts are so much better than repetitive fictions! I thought that was a conservative strategy! George W. Bush even said it, and he was no genius! Then I found DU and the Hillary Haters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:37 PM

49. the Hillary Haters!

 

There's that fundie Christian nomenclature again.

Every time I see "Hillary Haters", you know to just tune out the cultist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:47 PM

61. Look at this OP...

and thread and explain why this isn't Hillary Hate.

If I said these kinds of things about Senator Sanders (I-VT) I'd be on timeout so fast my head would spin!

But my goal is not to hate. My goal is to positively support the candidate of my choice. But the Hillary Haters won't allow that. Bash, bash, bash. Another conservative strategy. Like McConnell when they were swearing in Obama.

It's sad.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #61)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:51 PM

63. Look at this OP...

 

Saying what actually happened is not "hate".

Disagreeing with Hillary is not hating her.

When are you guys gonna stop acting like she's your memaw or something and realize this is a primary for the president of the USA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:35 PM

78. The truth is not a form of hate.

They just hate that fact!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:01 PM

86. Repetitive innuendo and speculation,

repeating the same fictions ad nauseum, that is not truth!

What do you call it when you feel nothing but contempt and disdain for someone, where you cannot even broach the idea of the person having any positive quality at all?

I call it hate. Wanna see it? Post something positive about Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:37 PM

89. Not hardly.

The truth of Hillary's record is a fact.
You just have to examine it, is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 09:26 AM

123. You mean like every time you see an enormous and garish BERNIE meme on a post...

...you know to just tune out the cultist?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:41 PM

52. Thanks

 

You'd think people that spend so much time on a political forum would actually be a bit more informed, but nope. Although it USED to be that way here. I guess I am just old school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:39 PM

50. Haters just have to hate Maggie

 

Their rage makes them blind to reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:44 PM

54. That's the problem with letting emotions overtake you in politics

 

You can't think straight when you do that. It is one of the things I really loathe about rethug voters. They come at every issue from an emotional basis instead of trying to understand the facts of an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:48 PM

147. I think the fact is that

Hillary is only against the TPP because polling suggests it is not popular to support. I'm sorry, but you don't spend years and years promoting something only to turn against it at a time of your convenience.

The fact that Hillary flip-flopped on the TPP is the FACT, and the EMOTION of people bashing her for that flip-flop came afterwards. For many people, their emotion is the result of her flip flop. Add to the fact that she thinks most of us are too stupid to hold her accountable for her previous support, and the emotional involvement is amplified tenfold. She continually insults our intelligence and we're not supposed to be angry (i.e., emotional) about it.

By the way, I'm an honest-to-goodness, unashamed Hillary Hater. I think she is simply not a good human being and she's a pathological liar. Her lack of authenticity and charisma shows through because she usually doesn't do very when it comes to how well-liked she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #147)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:50 PM

148. So why has she voted against trade bills in the past?

 

I would urge you to read her book or review the video I posted below. Her skepticism on Trade agreements is not new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #148)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:08 PM

150. She may have voted against them in the past

but she was a strong supporter of the current one.

Now, either all the glowing rhetoric she's spoken thus far about it didn't pan out the way she wanted in the actual wording of the TPP, or she changed her stance based on public reaction to it. I think her stated concerns for things like worker and environmental protections are truly heartfelt, and she only questions these sort of things in order to keep everyone thinking that she's actually a Democrat and a liberal.

I'm guessing Hillary will stay as quiet as she can on it from now until the elections, then if we are unfortunate enough to see her actually become president, she'll make a statement saying certain changes have been made to the TPP that satisfy her current reservations, and she'll return to lobbying for its passage.

I'm not really interested in buying or reading her book (I'll look for the relevant excerpts). I know you'll think my refusal to read her book will mean I'm uninformed and don't know the facts, but I'm OK with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nyabingi (Reply #150)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:11 PM

152. She was conditionally supportive of it if it contained the right criteria

 

And she has been clear about that for a very long time. I think you are confusing her role as SOS with her political positions on trade. Read the thread. I have covered this in detail.

The argument that she is flip flopping on this just doesn't hold water. If it did she would not have the lion's share of the huge Union endorsements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #152)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:13 PM

167. That would be like conditionally supporting slavery when it was legal if it had free schooling...

 

... mandated for children slaves.

Bernie KNEW from the start that this was a bad bill as did so many of the rest of us with so many of the facts that were leaked to us from a process that was DESIGNED to keep the facts from the people to avoid the backlash that legislation working against its interests would have on promoting opposition to it. He and others that were principled stood against it the way those that really are concerned about how this process worked against the 99% of us right from the start.

Hillary was not as concerned about what it did against the interests of the 99% as opposed to how much of it would become a beacon of support against her if it became more public she supported something that would work against the 99%'s interests. She was worried about losing support in the election. This bill's screwing most of us? She didn't care about that so much, and her stances have shown that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:15 PM

137. MaggieD, your messages about Hillary are always welcome. However I feel

once a Hillary basher, always a Hillary basher. I've given up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:36 PM

24. I'll tell you one more thing

I heard the TPP being debated in the Japanese parliament while Hillary was Secretary of State and touting the TPP as a "gold standard", but the issues about TPP that were being debated then are still issues that are being debated now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:04 PM

40. You should have read her book....

 

Why would that be any more truthful than any of her statements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:06 PM

41. The charge seems to be she is new to this idea

 

But reality and evidence is that she has been saying the same things about trade for 15 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:16 PM

42. she has been saying the same things about trade for 15 years.

 

So.... she hasn't "evolved' at all.


Just like we thought.


I wonder who ghost wrote her book.



I'm sorry, but I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. I hope I don't have to get drunk and vote for her in the general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:34 PM

46. She writes her own books

 

To quote a 2 year old comment on this:

"At this point, who cares? This isn't "news". It's just HillyBabble."


Hillybabble indeed. Actions speak louder than words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:45 PM

57. Well you asked - and her editor says she writes her own books

 

So now you know.

As far as actions and words - that's the whole point. Her actions DO match her words on trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:38 PM

79. She has changed her mind 4 times since she wrote her book.

First she was for it, then she was against it, then she was for it, then she was against it, now she is for it, nope, she's against it.

WHAT LEADERSHIP!!!!!

Can you imagine what she would be like to be in charge of the military forces?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:13 AM

93. These agreements are inherently bad

 

Its like saying there are good train wrecks and bad train wrecks.

Their Purposes is to let markets supersede the public interest and make civil laws and policies subservient to the imperatives of corporations. There is no way to put lipstick on that pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:22 AM

100. Precisely. That is the biggest problem with NAFTA & the TPP.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:18 PM

14. Great to see you Cali. Your voice was missed here on DU.


Why would Hillary oppose a trade deal which many of her large campaign contributors stand to gain from? Is she going to take their money and turn on them? Is the Clinton foundation going to stiff them after all of the big donations? Of course not. Some here on DU love playing "pretend".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:18 PM

15. Nice to see you back!

I used to actually like Sec. Clinton waaaaaay back in the 90's. Not so much anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:19 PM

16. It just can't be!

Hillary does exactly what we want!

But let's hold her to a 'higher standard.'

"You can't just be against TPP! Not good enough! No more campaigning for president - take a couple months off and see if you can stop any Democratic support for TPP! You'll then receive our undying love and devotion!"

Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:22 PM

18. as i've argued it from the beginning, she's closer to the repubs

 

on it than she is Bernie, their respectives "Nays" notwithstanding.

she could of course change all that with specifying exactly what changed her mind and is now unacceptable about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:30 PM

160. Yes I would like to hear that too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:25 PM

20. ....

She just thinks we're ALL stupid enough to believe her. It's always worked before. PROGRESSIVES were bamboozled by Obama in the last two elections - no reason to believe everyone won't buy her bullshit this time too.

Unfortunately, for her, we're onto their game. Play to the left during the primaries to get the Progressive vote to win the nomination and turn RIGHT during the GE.

NO MORE! We aren't playing their game anymore. She supports the TPP and I don't appreciate her trying to play me for a fool. It is insulting. I know she's being dishonest and so does she.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:47 PM

28. You are absolutely RIGHT about this. And you have stated it perfectly.

I wish I could rec your post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:50 PM

62. Thank you, CaliforniaPeggy.

Their games are getting so old. Thankfully a large segment of the population has finally figured out what they've been doing and will vote accordingly. The only people Clinton is fooling are her supporters....and I'm not so sure they believe her, they just don't care what she has to say to get elected. Integrity doesn't seem to be important at all.

It's important to me and that's why I support Bernie.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in_cog_ni_to (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:42 PM

82. Yup… the last time I voted for Hillary

will be exactly that.

"Enough, is Enough, Is Enough" Ohio State Senator and minority whip Nina Turner

and… Cheers to Cali!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:43 PM

25. Anyone who believes Hillary on this

just isn't paying close attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broward (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:51 PM

32. Love is blind.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:45 PM

27. I am so happy you are back. Your insight and voice were missed deeply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:48 PM

29. I think large numbers of us consider her a joke.

 

No one can take anything she says seriously. If you want to vote for her anyway, that's one thing. But if you believe she supports gay marriage and wall street regulations and environmental protection and labor unions and other liberal issues, you're deluding yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:41 AM

120. Huge +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:51 PM

33. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 08:59 PM

35. Very good.

I am glad you are back. You were missed.
As soon as she secures the nomination, IF she does, we will see her change so quickly our necks will hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:02 PM

38. Hillary Ingested Shrooms Prior to Statement Opposing TPP

It is beyond me how anyone can believe Hillary Clinton is actually against TPP. Some have written theories on why she ever stated she opposed it...

Hillary Ingested Shrooms Prior to Statement Opposing TPP

WASHINGTON (The Nil Admirari) - This morning, the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced the candidate was under the influence of shrooms when she voiced opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) yesterday. Hillary Clinton confirmed she ingested "a lot" of shrooms just before claiming she opposed TPP, and confessed it would be ridiculous for Americans to believe such a statement in light of her negotiating and promoting of TPP as Secretary of State - and continuing to promote TPP after resigning.

+

Jinks continued, "The campaign remains unaware of how Secretary Clinton came into contact with the shrooms, and is conducting an internal investigation into that matter. The American people should disregard what Hillary said about not supporting TPP anymore. Even we know it's a ridiculous claim."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:27 PM

44. From the debate that she delivered this lie:

Last edited Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)

SEN. CLINTON: "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. "


came this when she consolidated her flip-flop on NAFTA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
SEN. CLINTON: "So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement. ..."

SEN. CLINTON: "I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do."


I put these into google:
site:www.hillaryclinton.com "free trade"
site:www.hillaryclinton.com NAFTA
site:www.hillaryclinton.com "North American Free Trade"
site:www.hillaryclinton.com trade

and checked some of the links on her site including this one on "issues"
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Interesting that you cannot find the 2008 NAFTA promise she flipped to on her 2016 site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:33 PM

45. She's evolved into the Master Class of CYA politics. K&R and welcome back.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:36 PM

47. I guess as the Bern continues to fade....

 

... The attacks will get more desperate. There are going to be a LOT of sad people here around March when this is all wrapped up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:36 AM

103. Don't even care about the issue?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:03 AM

110. I'm more mystified as to why some here want to weaken the Dem nominee

 

It's silly and foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:18 AM

111. Three little facts to reduce your mystification.

 

1. This is a democracy. We are voters. We have a right and a duty to choose, to accept and to reject.

2. This is the primary. This is where we compare and contrast, weigh and measure. Candidates come out ahead or behind in these comparisons.

3. It is doubtful that the entire country is reading DU.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:39 AM

115. we don't have a Dem nominee yet

And if you're talking about Hillary it's because she has a history that runs contrary to many Democratic values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:57 AM

129. I'm more mystified as to why some here think we have a Dem nominee

That's just "silly and foolish" since not a single vote has been cast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:42 AM

131. Actually, hundreds of votes have been cast.

 

There are over 700 superdelgates, and Secretary Clinton has locked up hundreds of them. Senator Sanders has a handful. Secretary Clinton leads in that area by a 45-1 ratio.

So yes. A significant proportion of votes have already been decided.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:56 AM

134. You know superdelgates are not binding, they are free to vote for any candidate they wish at the

convention. I hate to disappoint you but there is still that bothersome little fact that the little people get to cast a vote. If 700 voters get to decide let's just drop the pretense and not vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:09 PM

135. I'll bookmark this post for reading in March.

 

Sorry, but based on an overwhelming lead in both the polls and committed superdelegates.... its basically over. Senator Sanders had a nice run, but he never got the level of mainstream support he will need. And barring something along the lines of a catastrophic event, there's nothing on the horizon that will change that calculus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #135)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:12 PM

136. That's the point. Should something happen as it did in 2008

and Hillary tank, those superdelegates for Hillary don't mean squat. She's not the nominee before the people cast a single vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #136)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:19 PM

138. You're missing the point

 

There was no catastrophic event that happened in 2008. President Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate. Bernie Sanders is not a once in a lifetime candidate. President Obama had a continual rise in the polls. Senator Sanders has flatlined. President Obama's superior debating skills could move the needle. Senator Sanders debating skills are average at best.

Secretary Clinton has taken everything her foes can throw at her and has only come back stronger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:30 PM

142. No I'm not missing anything. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:46 PM

145. See you in March

 

After the Bern has faded away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:16 PM

157. Sanders is not "once in a lifetime," he is unique!

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philosslayer (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:22 PM

169. Bernie Sanders not a "once in a lifetime" candidate? Many of us want another FDR...

 

... and someone like Bernie is the once in our lifetime candidate to give us that person as a potential leader.

And perhaps there are many Jewish Americans like many African Americans in last election who might understand that this is a unique opportunity for a Jewish person to be elected too. For most of us, much as that it is cool to have someone representing a minority religion to have that chance to be a leader, it isn't what he's running on in terms of "identity politics" that so many others have in the past emphasized more, but just one more aspect that defines his campaign that is a big change from what we are used to getting offered to us to vote for. Of course there are many of us would love to have Bernie for president who are just as strongly against someone like Netanyahu and what he represents as a voice in the middle east that has done a lot more damage than previous Israeli leaders have to the atmosphere there. I think that's a good reason why a Muslim like Keith Ellison also supports Bernie too but probably wouldn't support a personality like Netanyahu too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:37 PM

48. I've never returned to a full time job after NAFTA

Employment in my field of tech diminished greatly after NAFTA and what jobs are left you must compete with 500 people over 1 salaried position that's going to pay a 40 hr week but work you at 60.

FUCK the TPP!

Anyone who supports it is being 100 % dishonest to the American worker.

There was a time on DU where the TPP would have been completely reprehensible by most, but now we have people supporting it?

Completely insane rightwingery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:43 PM

53. As long as the others

don't pay the price that you have they just don't care. Sorry to hear of your struggles.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UglyGreed (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:45 PM

56. Exactly.

Thanks bud. Empathy, so lacking in this day and age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:56 PM

66. N/P

wish I could offer more than words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:39 PM

51. CALI!



ReHi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:46 PM

58. k&r/Hey Cali! Welcome back.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:46 PM

59. Some cannot grasp that those who oppose Hillary don't 'hate' her personally... it's the obvious

 

and intelligence-insulting policy "reversals" and LIES she spouts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:54 PM

65. When I call someone a LIAR...

that is not personal?

But since it's Hillary...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:58 PM

67. I have a cousin who is a pathological liar... I don't hate her, but I don't fucking trust her.

 

Not a difficult concept to grasp, really...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:24 PM

76. I'm sure your cousin...

doesn't take it personal when you call her a liar.

Hillary does. If you haven't been watching the debates, I'll let you know Hillary gets irate with this kind of crap.

I can present no facts to you - as done in this thread - which will change your very personal regards towards Hillary.

Is 'hate' the wrong word?

When so many "Democrats" clearly state they would rather a Republican won than vote for Hillary, I call that hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #76)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:25 PM

88. Look... if Hillary gets upset about being labelled a "liar", perhaps she shouldn't lie. But she does

 

... Repeatedly. No one I know, myself included, HATES her... but people are aware that she is a LIAR, and therefore, shouldn't be POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #65)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:14 PM

71. And here I thought it was a Democracy.

Where we are free to discuss authority instead of treating it as a deity.

I lived under Marcus early in my life in the Philippines, where any such talk was extinguished immediately.

But because it's Hillary, she gets a pass.

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 09:47 PM

60. K&R!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:02 PM

68. Not the Gold Standard, says Bernie

Bernie Sanders: "Now that the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has finally been released, it is even worse than I thought. It is clear to me that the proposed agreement is not, nor has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements."

More on Bernie Sanders statement...


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/05/tpp-worse-i-thought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:14 PM

70. Does he mention what is the gold standard?

What is the best trade deal?

What is our model?

I guess maybe "beads for Manhattan Island"? Yeah, that could be the gold standard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:16 PM

73. your right wing is showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:32 PM

77. Right wing is thinking you can negotiate a trade deal...

where you get everything you want, and give up nothing.

Regardless of what Senator Sanders (I-VT) says on the subject, TPP is by far the most progressive trade agreement proposal ever.

Is it perfect? If that is your standard, your life is going to be full of disappointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:41 PM

81. Sorry, I grew up in the Philippines under Marcus

I thought America was a Democracy. I get a little edgy when I start hearing and seeing the same shit happen here.

Let's see I was raised on a dirt floor in the slums of Manila and your asking me if it's perfect? Hmm...

All your BS aside I have only one requirement for a successful trade deal, and it's not to fuck over the American worker, especially when we prompted the negotiations. WTF, is this 18th century England?

I know the victorian era appeals to some but that's not how we're going to move forward into the next freaking century w/o massive loss of life.

Crack a book bud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:54 PM

85. Not Perfect? Not Even Close...

Bernie Sanders:

"The TPP would allow foreign corporations to sue federal, state and local governments in an international tribunal for passing an increase in the minimum wage or any other law that could hurt expected future profits.

The agreement would threaten American laws that protect the safety of the drugs we take, the seafood we feed our families and the toys our kids play with every day.

At a time when prescription drug prices are skyrocketing, the TPP would make a bad situation even worse by granting new monopoly rights to big pharmaceutical companies to deny access to lower cost generic drugs to millions of people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:39 PM

90. Are you scared? Is TPP horrifying?

And your telling me Congress is going to approve all this?

This is all hyperbolic rhetorical speculation with no legitimate foundation in fact! Obama has pointed this out already, outraged that Democrats (and the independent who caucuses with Democrats) put out this garbage.

The truth is out there. You are being spoon fed fiction and you are swallowing it!

Question everything doesn't apply to just one side!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:55 PM

91. "Question everything doesn't apply to just one side!"

Seriously? And you're wondering about the pushback on Hillary?!?

How Fucking Ironic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:21 AM

94. You think this Hillary Hate is new and original?

Three decades!

Over and over and over and over. Nothing changes. Same schtick, new decade.

You accepting innuendo and unfounded speculation without examination is the problem. Then, when we get down to the nitty-gritty inarguable facts, it devolves into "I don't trust her " or "I don't like her" or "I don't believe her." Like nothing else matters.

But mostly, there is no conversation or examination of facts. A closed mind is a bar to any argument.

Why does your 'opinion' matter?

Why, here we are on a well-established Democratic website discussing our next presidential nominee. Shouldn't we be agreeing more than disagreeing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:46 AM

106. I liked her just fine until she fought VERY dirty in the 2008 campaign.

 

That did it for me. A "D" after a person's name is no substitute for honesty, decency, and integrity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:58 PM

163. That did it for me, too, senz.

 

If that is the way she is going to campaign, I don't want to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:42 AM

105. I guess you're in what you would call "good company," yallerdog

 

because Republicans LOVE the TPP. You are right there with them. Defend it all you want.

Yes, your right wing is showing. Brightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #105)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:38 PM

170. YEP!!! Explain WHY MORE Republicans supported TPP than Democrats, huh?

 

You got that right senz!!!

WHY do those TPP supporters like legislation supported MORE by Republicans than Democrats? Are those Democratic congress people opponents working against their constituents' wishes by opposing it or working FOR their interests? If their constituents as a majority of Democrats that voted them in were FOR the TPP, then why would they take a stance AGAINST what Obama was pushing and work against what some would try to call "bipartisan" legislation, unless they felt their constituents provided them good reasons to oppose it?

The Turd Way with the TURD PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (or as Thom Hartmann calls it SHAFTA!), epitomizes and exposes itself as more concerned about supporting corporate interests than those of the people!!!!

Those that are supporting it in my book are either complicit in this regard or missing a few brain cells.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:07 PM

69. Welcome back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:16 PM

72. The extra heaping of insulting is she waited until after TPA passed, making the TPP a done deal.

The TPP now needs zero Democratic votes to pass, thanks to TPA.

Clinton is now trying to "have her cake and eat it too" by claiming opposition after opposition can't do anything. Back when her opposition could have had an effect, she told us to wait until she was elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:40 PM

80. She wants to be a winner.

She wants to come down on the side that wins, all of the time.
That's why she flip flops so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:50 PM

84. Yea, my mom was all about herself.

Which is why I rarely speak to her anymore.

wait a minute.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:48 PM

83. Absolutely. That was the defining vote

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 11:19 PM

87. She plays us all for fools and many are proving her right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:36 AM

97. Unbelievable!

Hillary is now responsible for passage of TPA!

Is there anything you all won't pin on the omnipotent all-powerful Hillary?

Aren't you worried she might have her eye on you sparrows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #97)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:07 AM

99. That sound is the point sailing over your head.

Her opposition now is meaningless at this point. She might as well be talking about her opposition to the war of 1812.

She waited until her opposition could have no effect, then she spoke up. Back when her opposition could have had an effect, she remained silent.

That doesn't make her responsible for TPA. It means she's playing you for a fool. And you're happy to play along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #99)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:35 AM

102. Now, you said, "She waited until after TPA passed, making the TPP a done deal."

TPA is the Congressional oversight rules and guidelines for negotiation from Congress authorizing the president to finalize the proposed trade deal.

As a member of Obama's cabinet who promoted aspects of this trade deal as Secretary of State - prior to Congressional approval - Hillary basically recused herself from a position regarding Trade Promotion Authority. An absolutely normal professional courtesy we would expect!

Once Trade Promotion Authority was passed, she could weigh in as someone who understood this trade deal did not meet her standards. The release of the final full text could influence her decision, but so far she hasn't weighed in with a detailed critique.

This is Congress and the Presidents deal now. We'll see if a Republican Congress is going to give Obama and the Democrats another win! Are they clamoring to hear Hillary's opinion other than the one she has given? I think not.

And yet you believe she could stop it if she chose to - and won't. Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:51 AM

108. And the point goes further over your head.

See, if you actually read the posts, you'll note I never said TPA's passage was her fault. That's the strawman you desperately keep trying to set up.

Instead, I've always talked about Clinton refusing to comment on the TPP until she can have no effect on its passage. That her opposition is nothing but theater designed to fool you.

Once Trade Promotion Authority was passed, she could weigh in as someone who understood this trade deal did not meet her standards

So...she has utterly zero understanding of how government works?

Because if she understood how government work and actually felt that the TPP did not meet her standards, why would she keep quiet until after it was guaranteed to pass?

"It just wouldn't be prudent for me to speak up when I could stop this large disaster, so I waited until it was inevitable to say anything" is what you are claiming.

As something positive for Clinton. That she intentionally let something bad happen because she didn't want to ruffle any feathers.

Or she's clueless on how government works.

Which would you like? Clueless or lets bad things happen to keep the proper appearances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:42 PM

171. So, why should she and we by agreeing with her LOVE taking away the Democrats' ability to filibuster

 

... the TPP if when it was voted on they felt that it was exposed more as being against Americans' interests in general. Which is highly likely to happen when it was still very much a secret bill at that point when the TPA was passed.

Do you LOVE not being able to filibuster the TPP now yallerdawg? Please explain if you don't WHY you would support passing that TPA SHIT that just about all Republicans joined with CORPORATE Democrats passed along with our CORPORATE president against our interests?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #171)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:02 PM

174. TPA was "the filibuster" cloture vote.

If TPP is satisfactory, and meets the specified goals of Congress, it will get an up-or-down vote just like every other Congressional vote.

We already had the TPA argument - I guess you didn't win that argument - now we move on to the fully published TPP - or as Senator Sanders (I-VT) repeatedly called it - the "secret" document no one can see.

This "secret" document: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership

Now, you can continue to swallow the one-liner spoon fed propaganda - or you can weigh the positives against the negatives, knowing this will have a significant impact on America and the world for years to come.

The world we help create, or the world that just happens to us.

Democrats need to wake up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #174)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:14 PM

175. And then WHY did congress NOT KNOW about what was in TPP when they voted on TPA?

 

Other than those getting paid by their contributors to support it, and feeling they had an excuse to vote for it since they didn't know anything "bad" AT THAT POINT about the TPP or other subsequent trade bills that later will have no opportunity to be filibustered then.

Those DEMOCRATS that voted against TPA were the ones that were thinking about this issue and how they won't be able to stand up for their constituents' interests in subsequent trade bill votes when they voted DOWN the TPA even if it was pushed by Obama and his CORPORATIST BUDDY Republicans along with some CORPORATIST BUDDY Democrats.

Other legislation gets a cloture vote ON THAT LEGISLATION, not some massive bill to get rid of cloture for bills that might be offered SIX YEARS FROM NOW!!!

That is why this "cloture" vote you classify the TPA is NOT "cloture" in the traditional sense of how we have cloture and filibusters, and the corporate owners of our congress knew that. It was those WEASELS' way of working around filibusters and they knew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #175)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:35 PM

182. Were you told this or do you make it up?

Every member of Congress had access to the draft-in-work TPP document which is an international agreement. This is the process Congress determined would allow the executive branch the ability to negotiate simultaneously with a number of sovereign nations. If Congress were able to revise and change and throw out item after item, no country would ever agree to negotiate with an administration and 500 plus Congresspersons! It would be unworkable and a non-starter.

Now your argument is Congress should be in charge and no trade deals is the best deal! That, in fact, protectionism and isolation is our best option. Or simple little tariff deals - damn the consequences!

Congress may do just that!

TPA was the guidelines for what Congress wanted the administration to negotiate for. If our Congresspersons determine TPP did not meet their goals - or in the case of a number of Congresspersons, would never meet acceptable conditions ever - TPP will be rejected.

This simplistic notion of "corporatist buddy Democrats" is for simple-minded children. I hope this is just hyperbole and not your vision of the way the world really is. Unfortunately, I'm most certainly wrong on this point.

Go read TPP, follow the reasoning and structures, expand your knowledge! Understand the future and what is headed our way!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #182)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 07:52 PM

183. Frankly I prefer our CONSTITUTION and OUR court system and not a CORPORATE ISDS court...

 

So, pardon me for siding with our founders against UNCONSTITUTIONAL BULLSHIT disguised as some sort of great "trade deal".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #183)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:15 PM

184. I'm sure other countries wil go along with that!

How do we protect US citizen's and corporate investment with our trade partners? How can we assure those foreign investors are safe here in the US? Our courts? Silly wabbit.

Investment Chapter of TPP:

Investor-State Disputes

TPP investors will have the right to pursue neutral, international arbitration in the event of a dispute between an investor of a TPP Party and another TPP Party over a violation of one of the commitments of the Investment chapter. The chapter specifies these proceedings will be conducted in a transparent manner, with opportunities for public participation and safeguards to prevent abuse and help deter frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious claims. The safeguards include:
•Transparency of arbitral proceedings

Ensuring that arbitration hearings and documents are open and available to the public. For investor-State cases against the United States under TPP, all submissions, hearing transcripts, and other key documents will be available on the U.S. State Department website.

•Amicus curiae submissions

Ensuring that interested stakeholders, including labor unions, civil society organizations and other interested stakeholders, can submit amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs.

•Non-disputing party submissions

Ensuring that an investor’s home government and other TPP Parties are able to make submissions to panels on the interpretation of the Agreement.

•Expedited review of frivolous claims and possible award of attorneys’ fees

Ensuring, as under the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that panels are able, on an expedited basis, to review and dismiss frivolous claims and award costs and attorneys’ fees to the respondent government.

•Interim review and award challenges

Ensuring that disputing parties will be able to review and comment on proposed arbitral awards prior to their issuance, and to allow both disputing parties the option to challenge a tribunal award.

•Binding joint interpretations

Ensuring that TPP Parties, at any time, can agree on interpretations of the agreement that are binding on tribunals.

•Time limits

The time period during which an investor can bring an investor-State claim is limited to three and a half years from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of an alleged breach.

•Claimant waiver

To prevent “forum shopping,” a claimant pursuing a claim in investor-State arbitration must waive the right to initiate parallel proceedings in other fora challenging the same measures


https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/investment-c76dbd892f3a#.oqwrfc6hx

Or we can go with "ISDS bad"! Lot fewer words...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #184)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:36 PM

185. So you will like Transcanada suing us for "lost profits" and "giving us 35 jobs"...

 

... to build the Keystone Oil Pipeline so that we can avoid having to pay a fortune in fines for not building that for them and the rich people like the Koch brothers' that lost those investors their "profits".

That is what will happen, and how laws we put in place to protect our people and our environment will be slapped down to protect the multinational corporations and the wealthy people who own them.

WHY do you like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #185)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 09:40 PM

186. That is pure fiction!

There are safeguards spelled out addressing this kind of speculation - if you had read!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:18 PM

74. K & R

Good to see you, cali.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 10:19 PM

75. K&R!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:23 AM

95. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:55 AM

98. Excellent OP. Thanks for presenting the case for what I've strongly sensed.

 

She is so, so, so FALSE. How anyone can back her for any but venal reasons is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:32 AM

101. Great summary, but you omitted a couple important facts

 

First, Clinton announced her sort-of opposition to the TPP immediately after the text had been finalized -- but before it had been publicly released. She tried to give the impression that her previous oft-reiterated support had applied to an earlier version and that her flipflop was based on seeing the final text. She hadn't actually seen it, though, and she's never said how the final text supposedly differs from the version she had been touting. (In this thread, one of her supporters has mentioned currency manipulation. That's a red herring. The U.S. Trade Representative said quite a while back that currency manipulation wasn't in the agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury said that there was so much opposition to including it that the U.S. wasn't even trying to get it in. So please don't further insult our intelligence by pretending that Clinton switched when somehow, to her great surprise, the bumbling Obama administration bargained away a currency manipulation provision.)

[strike]Second, it's worth noting how, in the televised debate, she lied.[/strike] (Oops, we can't say she lied. The Clinton supporters' delicate sensibilities will be offended. Let me try again.) Second, it's worth noting how, in the televised debate, she gave an account that did not accord with the documented record. What she said in 2012 was: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field." What she said in 2015 was: "I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard." Politifact very charitably gives her a Half True for a phrasing that "doesn’t exactly match up to her prior comments" and for "twisting her 2012 remarks a bit" by switching from the definitive statement she actually made to the claim that she'd merely expressed a hope. See "What Hillary Clinton really said about TPP and the 'gold standard'" for a lot more detail.

Despite these omissions , your post is very valuable and I'm glad to see you back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:47 PM

146. Thank you, Jim.

 

You do a much better job than I did.

I find her faux opposition so frustrating because it is such a transparent example of pure political opportunism.

And yes, I find it despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:38 AM

104. This is what gets me

3. Hillary Clinton stated that she wouldn't lobby or rally against the TPP. She would only state her position. Since she's not a member in the Congress, her position means absolutely nothing to defeat the TPP. In fact, she has the endorsement of the vast majority of democrats in the Congress, including those who voted to Fast Track it. This makes her the best person positioned to rally democrats to defeat it. However, she chooses to stay put and do absolutely nothing.


Some in this thread are saying that Hillary Clinton was against the TPA and we just don't know it. In fact she said very little about the TPA or TPP until after the TPA was passed. My question is why?

She had plenty of time to get up to speed on the changes that were made between the time she left her position as SoS and the time that the TPA was up for a vote. I've also heard some Clinton supporters claim that she had no idea what was in it. I very highly doubt that. Given that President Obama keeps in close touch with her after she left as SoS, she had to have had an idea what was in the agreement.

Furthermore, while she is not a member of Congress she has the ability to influence votes in both the House and the Senate. Many of the people in Congress have been there for a long time, some maybe even dating back to when her husband was president. So why she did not have had political influence, she DID have personal influence over some in Congress. She CHOOSE not to do anything about the TPA passing.

Now that the TPA has passed and the TPP only requires a simple majority, we are stuck with it. Our only hope is that one or more of the other countries in the agreement vote it down. Otherwise we are screwed.

Ps-Welcome back Cali! We missed you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:48 AM

107. And I'm glad you're back.

 

Don't let anyone push your buttons; we need you here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:02 AM

109. Funny, I don't feel insulted.

I guess I must have a thick skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:08 AM

114. One more very good analysis.

 

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 04:24 AM

117. Hillary says things when they are convenient to her needs, she is a Convenient Candidate IMO nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:35 AM

119. K&R! I think this post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Hillary IS NOT AGAINST THE TPP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 08:03 AM

121. Welcome back, cali!

Thanks for not giving up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 09:26 AM

124. The candidate of expedience!

She'll say anything to become president. She is too thirsty and too willing to cast integrity to the rocks to be trusted as our leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:06 AM

125. I've heard rumors some of the people she most trusts are hedge fund owners.

When one is doing all they can by funding, aiding and providing fiduciary cover to the ends of greed obsessed CEO's, corporate lobbyists, think tanks, the MIC, climate science deniers, private prisons and the crushing of our own as well as third world democracies, ecosystems and lives.

When every nickel one makes comes from taking it from another, from mortgaging a future for everything, from dishonesty and deceit just for themselves.

Does it really matter what they say?

All that money, all the investments, all working nonstop 24/7 365 across the globe to assure nothing gets better and least of all for the least of this world.

That no reality is allowed. Cause, you know, as bad as it might be for our friends in Africa, Asia and the Americas, it's nothing compared to being bad for their own bottom line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raouldukelives (Reply #125)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:45 AM

132. Wish I could rec this

post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:39 AM

126. K&R Glad you are back. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 10:42 AM

127. Welcome back, cali.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 11:47 AM

133. I no longer pay attention to anything Hillary says.

 

There is absolutely no point in wasting my time on that.
There is no "there", there. All pandering, all the time, all written in sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:20 PM

139. Well she is consistent

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:20 PM

140. Only to those who believe a word she says

 

Which is a very small group at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:38 PM

143. ...and the 56% of Democrats supporting her are...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 12:43 PM

144. So Bernie and O'Malley got outmaneuvered

Hillary made the announcement less than a week before the first debate. The TPP was one of the main issues that her two main challengers, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, were hammering her with. Also, Sanders poll numbers were rising especially in Iowa and New Hampshire and started to become a real threat for the nomination.


More proof that Hillary is the better candidate. It's not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 03:04 PM

164. Yes, they were maneuvered. Those like Hillary, willing to lie, to not hold to any ethical standard

 

will always have a political advantage. You find such behavior admirable.

I do not.

When it comes to a dearth of integrity, Hillary is the clear winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:47 PM

172. "Better" in what context? To win for HER, or provide a better candidate for the American people?

 

You can argue your case for the former, but NOT the latter.

And the "It's not even close" statement so much echoes the corporate echo chamber's "inevitability theme" that DID NOT WORK in 2008, even if Obama was more stealthily a candidate for corporate Amerida than Hillary was then, and John Edwards was in stealth a drawing card to get progressive votes away from Kucinich and any other opposition in the field that could be shut down when he was with his "baggage" then.

This time it's been harder for Korporate Amerika to rig the game like they did in 2008, and they know it. Americans have lived through more difficulty after 2008, and realize the way it was rigged against them then, and aren't going to put up with more BS this time around, no matter how much the "inevitability" card is played to get Hillary coronated is played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:10 PM

151. Difficult to have a conversation here w/o being accused of hating the other candidate

Clinton has a history of supporting major trade agreements such as NAFTA and the TPP which haven't really translated down to helping American workers, which is why Unions such as the AFL-CIO have been so staunchly against such deals.

People who feel this is Hilary Hate generally do not want anything negative said about their candidate. I get it. They staunchly believe she would make a good president, but the constant refrain of the slogan Hillary Haters is the reaction of a person who simply doesn't want to engage in a discussion about a significant issue in the campaign and has resorted to a form of name calling.

If this is their defense against the OP-Ed then it might be better to post - "I don't care what she has done in the past. I believe her now, and if she has made mistakes, I believe she has owned up to them and has evolved on those issues." This at least is a genuine reflection of your belief how she'll contribute going forward, rather than blaming someone here for posting a legitimate concern about an issue she has a history with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:16 PM

153. Yawn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:04 PM

156. Lol.

 

Thanks for the kick, my dear friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:50 PM

154. K&R - She is lying.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 01:56 PM

155. No surprise at all

She will say or do anything, anything at all, if it leads to her becoming President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:20 PM

158. The real reason

The real reason she made statements about the TPP and the Pipeline a few weeks out from the debate was to get those issues off the table during the debate.

She did political calculus and her people knew they could spin her flip-flopping on those issues better than they could Hillary actually having to answer those questions without getting challenged and you-tubed for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #158)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 02:56 PM

162. I agree. It's that simple and that contemptible.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #158)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 05:56 PM

173. All the more reason we need to push for H-1B and other "guest worker" program stances from her now..

 

... before the later debates before the primaries. She's sided for the H-1B program expansion to support the same interests that were pushing for TPP too. If we can get it to the point that it will become a debate question, then she'll feel forced to take a stance on that.

And with the rumors that TPP coming up for a vote in a few months will basically take down the ability for us to set quota numbers on H-1B and similar guest worker programs, if we can get her to announce it shortly, and also ask for how the TPP should be voted for or against with that in context, then perhaps we can actually get something done in a timely fashion, and give her either ammunition to say she's done something positive for us before the election, or expose her for the opportunist she's appeared to have been on so many occasions in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:30 PM

176. kick...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread