HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » 99th_Monkey » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326

Journal Archives

Hillary has a position on TPP, but we won't know what it is until it's "finalized"

Hillary Clinton Will Take Clear Position On Trade When Deal Is Done, Her Campaign Says
06/14/2015 * HuffPo * BY Laura Bassett

Hillary Clinton has said very little so far on the sweeping trade deal that House Democrats derailed on Friday, but her campaign said Sunday that she will take a clear position on the legislation as soon as the details are finalized.

"What we've seen at the last couple of days is skirmishes around the process for considering that agreement," John Podesta, chair of Clinton's presidential campaign, told Chuck Todd on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But the agreement's not final. So when it is final, she'll render a judgment about that. And she's stated her concerns. ... She has a clear standard that it's got to be good for American workers, or she thinks the United States will walk away from it."

Two of Clinton's 2016 primary competitors, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), have been urging her to clarify her stance on the controversial trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, in the past few weeks. House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), rebelled on Friday against legislation that would have granted President Barack Obama the authority to fast-track the trade deal though Congress. Pelosi said the deal did not contain enough protections for labor rights and the environment.


Did Blumenauer really vote FOR the TPP?

Looks like Wyden did vote FOR it. And I saw that Blumenauer was one
of the 'hold outs' or some such, could have gone either way.

How did he finally vote?

CAN Congress pass law to restrict "Trade" Bills to be ONLY about TRADE

... and not suing government for "lost profits" re environmental & other regulations, not about outsourcing US jobs, not about protecting big Pharma's monopolistic over-reach and certainly not about ceding national sovereignty to secret corporate-driven tribunals.

Would this be theoretically possible to do?

It's ok to chew gum and ride a bike at the same time

This whole "economic justice v. social justice" kerfuffle is just stupid imho. This
is not an 'either/or', it's a 'both/and' situation; and until we fully embrace both,
we're basically going to lose ground on both fronts.

These 2 issues are BOTH incredible important and inextricably intertwined,
and to pretend otherwise, by insisting on exclusively focusing on one while ignoring
the other or giving it a back seat, in my view is just plain silly, not to mention being
hugely divisive, and therefore counter-productive.

For the record, I haven't even posted ANYthing to the OP, rather I
was replying to cali's post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6783892
with this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6788043
saying essentially that i appreciate bringing some a both/and perspective to the discussion.

I NEVER even said I even disagreed with the OP, as I do NOT disagree with the OP. The OP
has every right to express their views imo, and I welcome those views and agree
with them as valid and important to the discussion.

So far on this string, you have accused me of:
1) "performing privilege and telling people of color their experiences don't matter."
2) having "reactionary views on race and gender"
3) "assuming you know what is best for others",
4) "pretending to be on the left"


Although I think it would be fitting, I don't expect you to apologize for these false and vile accusations;
because you appear to be so fixed in your views that you're not willing to consider any other perspective
as valid or worth considering at all. Which only illustrates my point, which is that pretending these
two issues are unrelated or that one is SUPER important while dismissing the other as "reactionary"
or "racist" is playing into the 'divide and conquer" agenda of the 1% and I refuse to do that, just
because someone with a different view insults me unjustly.

ON EDIT: It seems relevant that 91% of DU Peeps appear to agree that it's both/and:

WIKI-BOMB "*WANTED* Dead or Alive: $100,000 for Full Text of Trans-Pacific Partnership"

Hey all you DU Lefties, let's help get the word out on this!!!

*Wanted* Dead or Alive: $100,000 for Full Text of Trans-Pacific Partnership
WikiLeaks issues bounty for secret treaty which has been negotiated by corporate executives and government officials while the global public remains in the dark
by Jon Queally, staff writer * Tuesday, June 02, 2015 * Common Dreams

There is now a bounty on the head of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the "monster" (TPP) international treaty negotiated behind closed doors by government officials and corporate executives but kept secret from the global public.

The media outlet Wikileaks on Tuesday announced a campaign to raise a $100,000 cash reward for the complete text of the agreement in order to end the mystery surrounding the actual contents of the deal that involves the U.S. and eleven Pacific Rim nations.

"The transparency clock has run out on the TPP," said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. "No more secrecy. No more excuses. Letís open the TPP once and for all."

Despite unprecedented efforts by negotiating governments to keep it under wraps, WikiLeaks has been able to obtain and publish three leaked chapters of this super-secret global deal over the last two years. However, there are believed to be 26 other chapters of the deal to which only appointed negotiators, trade officials, and chosen representatives from big corporations have been given access.

"Today, WikiLeaks is taking steps to bring about the publicís rightful access to the missing chapters of this monster trade pact," the group said in a statement. "The TPP is the largest agreement of its kind in history: a multi-trillion dollar international treaty being negotiated in secret by the US, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia and 7 other countries. The treaty aims to create a new international legal regime that will allow transnational corporations to bypass domestic courts, evade environmental protections, police the internet on behalf of the content industry, limit the availability of affordable generic medicines, and drastically curtail each countryís legislative sovereignty."


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3