HRC was critical of TPP before it was cool

[MaggieD]

As I have posted many times now, HRC was actually one of the first to come out and criticize the TPP. She was sounding the alarm while most of you were not paying attention. *And, as I have also posted in the past, she is focused on ending the currency manipulation which is a HUGE reason we have a trade deficit that hurts American workers.

I am not surprised Warren thinks HRC is "terrific."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership_n_7173108.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

She writes in her book (which I am sure many of you have not read, but was published almost a year ago):

"Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."

*the idea is that the TPP would create more enforceable rules around currency manipulation that is currently occurring in Asian markets. Currency manipulation distorts trade flows by artificially lowering the cost of U.S. imports and raising the cost of U.S. exports, and that causes trade deficits and lost jobs in the country or countries that do not manipulate the currency.

[djean111]

1. IMO books like that are written in preparation for running for office.

HRC was helping write the TPP as SOS.
She really cannot get hurt now by the TPP - except, perhaps, to lose Obama's good graces - by being against anything in the TPP, especially if it is Fast Tracked. Since nothing can be changed once it is Fast Tracked, and since she cannot vote on it anyway, her current stance, to me, would be whatever her advisers tell her would appeal to the most voters.

[MaggieD]

3. Actually she voted against CAFTA as a senator

.... and has been beating the drum about the currency manipulation issue for a decade. So that blows your theory. Dang it.

[djean111]

7. As far as I can tell, currency manipulation is NOT addressed in the TPP.

How I feel about the TPP is not a theory, and nothing has been blown.
I do know that Pelosi is pushing for currency manipulation to be added to the TPP.
I also do believe that the TPP will not really enforce anything at all except Investor State disputes against countries, and all of the non-trade things that the corporations got to put into it, like making generics more expensive, things like that.

[MaggieD]

8. Actually it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Currency_manipulation

ETA: I am also skeptical they will enforce currency manipulation constraints as well. I am just pointing out ONE viewpoint is that the TPP will sail anyway, and this would be an opportunity to bend it to restrain currency manipulation.

[djean111]

10. No, some politicians and economists think it should be, but right now - not in it.

And currency manipulation has nothing to do with how I hate the TPP/TTIP, anyway.

[MaggieD]

13. It's in there - the debate is how enforceable it is

That issue should be a huge part of your objection to it since it is the biggest issue that kills American jobs.

[Elwood P Dowd]

23. Chuck Schumer said on MSNBC that TPP could not stop it.

It was during an interview he did with Tweety last week.

[MaggieD]

25. Stop the TPP totally, or US involvement?

I agree there is no stopping the TPP in total. They will move forward without US involvement. As far as moving forward with US involvement, I am not sure what you think HRC can do about that.

[Elwood P Dowd]

29. TPP would not stop currency manipulation.

That, and the control corps would have over our local, state, and federal laws made it a "no go" for him.

[Jim Lane]

40. No, it is not in there. You are simply flat-out wrong.

Your citation proves nothing. The Wikipedia passage you cite says only that currency manipulation has been a contentious issue.

Damn right it's been contentious. It's been contentious because many knowledgeable commentators want it included in TPP but it isn't included. Here's
an update from the Communications Workers of America from February 5, 2015:

In a new report, the Economic Policy Institute said Japanese currency practices have cost the United States as many as 900,000 jobs.

But ask U.S. Trade Rep. Michael Froman how his team is handling notorious currency manipulators in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations and he couldn't dance away fast enough from the question.

Don't ask me; currency is the responsibility of the Treasury Department, Froman began to say to Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing last week.

. . . .

Rules on currency manipulation won't be part of the massive TPP deal, the administration has told lawmakers.

Now, if you have inside information that the huge subject of currency manipulation -- which was not in the agreement after more than four years of negotiation -- has suddenly been added in the last three months, please share. With a link. Otherwise, I stand by my conclusion: You are simply flat-out wrong.

[MaggieD]

44. It is a main thrust of the negotiations

"The campaign to include enforceable obligations on currency manipulation in U.S. trade agreements is gaining momentum. On January 9th, the American Automobile Policy Council (APPC) unveiled its proposal for a currency manipulation clause for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, making its support for this key trade initiative contingent on the adoption of such enforceable provisions. The following day, leaders of the Congressional committees with jurisdiction over international trade finally introduced the draft of a trade promotion authority bill with the novel addition of currency manipulation as a main negotiation objective."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/15-currency-manipulation-clause-tpp-solis

[Jim Lane]

54. Do you even read the stuff you post? You're completely wrong.

Your quotation says that APPC (an automotive industry trade association) and some members of Congress think that currency manipulation should be in the agreement. My quotation says that Froman, the U.S. Trade Representative with principal responsibility for the negotiations, says that it isn't in the agreement.

[MaggieD]

58. Again, it is a FOCUS of the US negotiations

How are we supposed to push for it if we don't get involved in the negotiations?

[cali]

62. I'm going to put this simply, just for you.

The negotiations are drawing to a close. There have been over 20 rounds of negotiations and they have had NO SUCCESS with the issue. That is why some congresscritters tried to get it in the tpa- without success It is widely acknowledged that it won't be a part of the tpp.

yikes.

[MaggieD]

63. I think you have finally answered your own question!

Given that currency manipulation is one of HRC's biggest concerns do you think she might be waiting to see if the US can get some solid enforcement in the pact before trashing it? Because if we can do that it will solve a lot of global trade issues.

I knew you'd inadvertently get to the reality of the issue at some point. Congratulations! Even if you did not really mean to.

[cali]

67. The administration has recently admitted that it won't be part of the agreement

Jim posted that information for you.

You are living in some bizarro fantasy land. Don't expect others to buy into it. You have been thoroughly discredited on this, Maggie, my dear.

[MaggieD]

71. "some people say"

Admit it, you have no idea what you're talking about. It just seems like a cudgel you can use against HRC, so you love it.

Sorry, I've been watching your posts for years. I've got your number.

[Jim Lane]

70. You quote people who are NOT conducting the negotiations.

The APPC and the Congressmembers are not the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Froman, who is the USTR, says it won't be in there.

Then you lash out at a straw man. You refute the argument that we should never have entered into the negotiations. No one has made that argument.

The actual argument (that I would make, anyway) is:
* As of 2010, when the negotiations began, it was reasonable for the Obama administration to investigate the possibility of a mutually beneficial trade deal.
* The U.S. position in the negotiations should have included insistence on certain points, such as that ISDS not give foreign corporations such sweeping power to overturn U.S. environmental laws, that the patent protections not so greatly hinder access to medicines, etc. An attempt to address currency manipulation would also be a reasonable goal.
* Negotiations, by their nature, aren't subject to any one party's unilateral control. Even if the Obama administration took those positions, and tried to get them in the agreement, it's now clear that the effort failed.
* We already know enough about the TPP, through the leaks of near-final drafts that haven't been denied by anyone knowledgeable, to know that it will do the U.S. much more harm than good.

[sabrina 1]

120. We CAN'T push for anything, that is the problem, far more of a problem than what is in it or not, is

the fact that the American people are being denied to right to see what's in it.

If Hillary is opposed to it, she has not said. Now is the time. Bernie has stated outright that he is opposed to it and has said why. THIS will add to the huge opposition from all over the country, across party lines, from Unions and Labor Groups, from Environmental Protection Groups, and from Net Neutrality organizations, and from most Elected Dems.

THAT opposition stopped it from going forward a year ago, because people spoke up against it.

AND that intense opposition forced the administration to finally allow (imagine having to say that) 'allow Congress' to finally take a peek at this secret agreement. And with so many restrictions, Congress members, like Sen Brown tried for one year to get answers as to why his staff could not view the text without his presence. HE was IGNORED, a US Senator. So what chance do we the people have of doing anything about it?

But those in powerful positions, like Hillary COULD add her voice to the protests. Just say NO to this agreement. We said NO to Bush when he tried it in 2007.

The leaks we did see, only confirmed how bad it is.

I hope it is defeated as Bush's attempt to fast track his bill was.

She at least could take a stand on Fast Tracking it. That will end any chance of amending it which is simply unacceptable in any Democracy.

[Aerows]

126. This has to be the most hilarious

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

post that is tone-deaf I've ever seen.

I just sit here, my friend, glad I'm not ...

(not yours, the OP)

[cali]

59. you are desperate

first you claim, over and over again that it's in there. Those of us telling you you're wrong? providing evidence of your nonsense claim? You ignore. Finally, you kinda sorta seem to admit that we are right and YOU are flat out wrong. And those of us who really have researched know that the odds of it being included in the TPP are vanishingly small. I'm not going to bother posting links anymore to you, because you either deny what's right fucking in front of your face, or you whinge about the source.

Funny, that you use the link I provided you, though. The thing is, Maggie, in the 15 months since that was written, the prospect for currency manipulation provisions in the TPP are even DIMMER than they were then.

just lame.

[MaggieD]

61. It is part of the negotiations

I'm beginning to think you simply cannot read. Now I know you hate HRC. But you really need to tamp that down and face reality. Neither she nor Obama are the monsters you'd like to portray them as.

Would you prefer it if we didn't try to use the pact to enforce some currency manipulation rules? I actually believe you would if it would give you something to bash a Democrat with.

[cali]

74. one straw man after another.

It's absurd to claim I can't read, honey. Just silly. I mean if you were going to throw that gratuitous insult out there you should have said something like "I'm beginning to think you have a problem with reading comprehension". In any case, I digress, I digress to quote that old illiterate, T.S., I don't hate Hillary. And I'm clearly not the one out of touch with reality. I'm not the one making dumb false claims that are so very easily refuted.

One more time, con brio: THE ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THE HEAD OF THE USTR OFFICE HAS STATED THAT NOTHING THAT WOULD CURTAIL CURRENCY MANIPULATION WILL BE PART OF THE TPP.

[MaggieD]

77. I'm not your honey

I know lots of people here are bullied by your nastiness, but that doesn't include me.

As for your strawman argument, that's funny. Because from my perspective you are the queen of that. LOL!

[Aerows]

146. And you most certainly

aren't her sweetness.

[Caretha]

109. So far only 13 Democrats in the Senate

are for the TPP, and of course the majority of Republicans are for it.

Do you stand with them - the majority of Republicans and a handful of turn-coat Dems?

I see something wrong with this picture, and it ain't pretty.

[cali]

121. It's in the House that only 13 dems have come out in support of the tpa

Although we don't know the numbers in the Senate, I suspect it will be easier to pass rhe tpa there. The tpa is not the. Tpp but support or opposition is closely linked to support or opposition to the tpp

[Caretha]

125. Thank you for the correction

[Sheepshank]

14. So much bullshit ....

as SoS if she is told to review and make policy, and international trade law corrections to a document...she does exactly that. To even try and imply that her involvment means she is the repsonsible writer or negotiator for the document, that her SoS job and it's assignments imply she is 100% sold on the document, is patently false and that angle and argument really stinks of anti HRC desperation.

[djean111]

20. I am not in the least bit desperate.

So - she was forced to help write it and promote it. Interesting take on it.

[Sheepshank]

24. We all have jobs that are answerable upline.....unless we are the CEO/owner/President

we working stiffs rarely do 100% of what we personally want to do on the job. SoS involvment with the document is no different. That is my take on it. No twisting and reinterpreting on your part is necessary. Trying to paint me into a fucking corner is a poor tactic. So now you're poorly desperate.

Please describe what you mean by "promote it". The OP and recent articles (eg agreeing with Warren) seem to state otherwise.

[Fumesucker]

122. Yeah, Hillary is a working stiff...

I mean don't all of us working stiffs set up our own server at our home to conduct our job related emails over?

[lewebley3]

152. Hillary did the right thing with the Server, Obama's emails have been hacked into!

Hillary protected the US private information!

As for working stiff, I can think of few people whom have work as hard as her.

[Sheepshank]

153. Are you really trying to imply the HRS can act independently from POTUS?

that she can run amok and make up any rule and follow any policy she damn well feels like?

Ok, at this point you are simply playing games trying to diverty the intent of my post, which is that she is responsible for following the desires and policies of her boss.

I can't imagine that you find this concept hard to understand. Clearly its willfull ignorance on your part simply to promote an agenda of finding something with which to slam HRC. I suggest you persue another track, because this one is wrong, worn out and simply doesn' hold any water.

[MaggieD]

26. Exactly - what an absurd thing to think

Good post.

[pnwmom]

76. I like it when Democratic politicians listen to the voters.

[Marr]

2. "How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent?!"

Haha... no.

[MaggieD]

4. I guess when you can't debate an issue....

... a picture seems like a good substitute? LOL!

[Marr]

6. Your premise is too absurd to 'debate'.

Hillary was part of Obama's Administration as this deal was being worked out. She's promoted it. She's one of the prime figures who's been moving it, publicly.

You might as well argue that Condoleeza Rice was one of the leading critics of the invasion of Iraq.

[MaggieD]

11. It's actually not absurd at all - it is factual

You seem to believe that because she did her job as SoS that she is in favor of any and all trade pacts. Did you want her to quit her job in protest? That is absurd.

The bottom line is that it looks to me like most posters on DU really are clueless about the TPP. And the excuse that it is "secret" is bogus in my opinion. It's just an excuse people use to be spout off while being deliberately uninformed. There is certainly enough known about it for the average person to debate the issues. More than enough, in fact.

[Marr]

16. Uh... the "we don't know what's in it" BS is one of the TPP *defenders'* lines.

Critics have pointed to what we do know about the deal, which is plenty to justify opposition.

According to you, Hillary has fought to make the TPP great, and critics are raging about the wonderful things they don't know about the deal. That makes a lots of sense.

I think you need to check your script.

[MaggieD]

21. Try again - LOL!

https://www.google.com/search?q=tpp+secret&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

[spanone]

5. k&r...

[Thinkingabout]

9. MaggieD, are you trying to bust bubbles?

Good Post, appreciated it.

[cali]

15. I posted that yesterday

Now why isn't Hillary coming out in opposition to the TPP? The ISDS is included. Professor, er, I mean President Obama has said so. The draft investment chapter was leaked just recently. If she thinks the ISDS is so bad, she should oppose the TPP. But just like with Keystone, Hillary is hedging her bets.

Now that's leadership.

Not.

[MaggieD]

18. No, that is the exact opposite of leadership

It's easy to be reflexively against something. That takes no skill at all.

Real leadership is working to change things and bend things like the TPP to the advantage of the people that elect them. You all seem to forget that the TPP is going to happen even if the US decides not to be involved in it.

[cali]

38. and up is down and red is blue. bullshit of the kind Orwell hated.

This has nothing to do with being "reflexively" against something, Maggie. Stop obfuscating, Maggie. Stop making up shit, Maggie.

[MaggieD]

41. It seems like you have never been in a leadership role

And I am sincerely not saying that to be mean or rude (even though you are nasty to me in every reply you make to any post I make).

But the fact is the very essence of leadership is finding solutions to difficult issues. Dismissing issues is very simple and takes no leadership at all.

The TPP is a very, very difficult issue because it IS going to go down with or without US involvement. And I say that as someone who is against it. I do not in any way envy our politicians on this issue.

[cali]

69. seems like you are posting more bullshit about something you can't possibly know

anything about, honey. And you are wrong. In modest ways, I have indeed been in leadership roles- through work for one and in organizing against the first Gulf war for another.

And the tpp is dead without U.S. involvement. Doesn't mean that it can't be revived in some form.

And please, plenty of savvy, informed people are opposed to it. I don't suppose you know who Joseph Stiglitz is, but this is his area of expertise and he is firmly opposed.

This isn't about dismissing issues. I have spent over 2 years researching the tpp. damned straight I'm opposed.

[cali]

12. I posted that exerpt from the article yesterday, dear.

Now when is Hillary going to oppose the TPP? She's just hedged- same as she has on Keystone. Now is the time to she could do some good by speaking out. The TPP contains the ISDS process she claims to oppose.

Oh, and the currency manipulation rule fight was lost. there was a fight to include it in the tpa because there is nothing about currency manipulation in the tpp. no dice.

[MaggieD]

17. LOL - I will bet you didn't post that excerpt

But it's nice to see we seemed to have dropped the canard that it is "secret."

Now tell us, why isn't Warren bagging on HRC if they aren't of the same mind on trade agreements? I think HRC made her feelings clear about trade pacts when she voted against CAFTA.

Lastly, the TPP is still in negotiations (as it has been for 8 years), and currency manipulation is one of the sticking points. It's completely inaccurate to say it has been dropped.

[cali]

30. bwahaha. Not to swift of you, darlin'. Have a heaping helping of yummy crow!

Warren and Clinton are not in the same place in regards to the TPP. Warren is unequivocally opposed to it. Hillary is, using weasel words. And Hillary has a mixed record on trade. She called

As for still in negotiation, most people in the know have said it is very unlikely to be in the final version- that's why there was the attempt to get it in the TPA. There have been over 20 rounds of negotiations. There hasn't been any accord on it.

This is from a year ago, but it's still valid.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/15-currency-manipulation-clause-tpp-solis

As for your silly "I will bet you didn't post that excerpt: YOU lose, hon. Love that you walked like a .... right into that one.

Here it is:

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 06:25

Hillary Clinton Agrees With Elizabeth Warren On Trade Dispute With Obama
Very interesting article, and good for HRC. I hope to hear her speaking out against the ISDS and the TPP which contains it, at this critical moment, before the TPA (fast track) vote. Her word carries weight with Congressional Democrats.


Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.

The policy position is contained in her book Hard Choices, and was confirmed to HuffPost by a spokesperson for her presidential campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats are locked in a bitter public feud over TPP -- a deal between 12 Pacific nations -- with much of the controversy derived from concerns it will undermine regulatory standards.

<snip>

Obama has vigorously defended ISDS against criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others, insisting it is necessary to protect American companies abroad.

"In a lot of countries, U.S. companies are discriminated against, and going through their court system would not give them relief," Obama told reporters on a conference call last week. "The notion that corporate America is going to be able to use this provision to eliminate our financial regulations and our food safety regulations and our consumer regulations -- that's just bunk. It's not true."

The Australian case that Clinton referenced in her book, however, is instructive. The Australian government enacted legislation that would require tobacco products be sold only with plain, simple packaging that includes health warnings -- labeling the tobacco companies objected to. Philip Morris Asia is suing Australia under a different free trade pact, using a similar ISDS provision, arguing that the Australian law is cutting into its profit. It's easy to see how laws in, say, New York City, would be similarly targeted.

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026596917

[MaggieD]

32. Allow me to quote your post:

"Very interesting article, and good for HRC. I hope to hear her speaking out against the ISDS and the TPP which contains it, at this critical moment, before the TPA (fast track) vote. Her word carries weight with Congressional Democrats."

So what are you bitching about? As I said in the OP she was speaking out about it over a year ago.

[cali]

35. bwahahahaha. I am so loving this.

first of all, I was, I confess, being a tad snarky there. Let me put it this way, I am not holding my breath waiting for Hillary to speak clearly in opposition to the TPP despite the FACT that it contains the ISDS provision that she claims to oppose.

And, no I'm not bitching. And unlike you I don't make endless false claims- like your silly op title. Hillary wasn't critical of it before it was cool. Dozens and dozens of Congressional dems were critical of it long before she wrote that in her book. And Bernie? Gee, he's been critical of ftas for 25 years. So waaay before it was "cool"- whatever the fuck that inane crap is supposed to mean.

And YOU lost your dumb little bet, didn't you, Maggie, dear?



some people are just too easy. You are a case in point. You post crap that is so easily refuted, make claims that are ridiculous on the face of it.

[MaggieD]

47. Well, you think leadership is stamping your feet and yelling NO!

I think what you know about politics and the issues could probably fit in a thimble, sorry to say.

[cali]

88. I remain unconvinced that you and thinking are on so much as nodding terms, Maggie

I clearly know far more than you do. And I don't just make shit up the way you do, Maggie. It's just sad, Maggie. This thread demonstrates that rather clearly, Maggie..

[Exilednight]

111. Actually, it is secret. Snippets have been released? But it's

Over 15000 pages long and the wiki leaks document is from 2013. How many revisions has 15000 pages gone thru since then?

[hrmjustin]

19. K&R!

[AtomicKitten]

22. The record reads otherwise.

Excerpt:

It's no mystery why the TPP, as it is commonly known, is the ad's subject. Hillary Clinton has been under pressure from progressives to pull her support for the emerging trade deal, which she helped to negotiate as secretary of state and championed as recently as November 2012, when she declared in a speech in Australia, “we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. ... 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.”

link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-21/martin-o-malley-seizes-on-hillary-clinton-s-vulnerability-on-trans-pacific-partnership

[MaggieD]

27. So says the right wing media

What a bunch of crap. Should we be surprised that a right wing news outlet that exists to suck up to business is PRETENDING that HRC as SoS gets to decide whether the US will involve itself in the TPP?

How about some political realism here? The TPP is going to happen whether the US involves itself or not. I don't agree with Obama (or any politician) on everything, but he is not evil. I would expect nothing less than for our leaders to try to bend the agreement to benefit US workers.

[Jim Lane]

33. This is, frankly, more bullshit from you.

You want to pretend she didn't call TPP "the gold standard" because a poster happened to cite Bloomberg? I challenged you on that point in this post last Tuesday, to which you never responded. An excerpt:

First, the quotation in which she called TPP "the gold standard" is not from her book. It's been very widely reported. (I just did a Google search for "Clinton TPP 'gold standard'" and got more than 300,000 hits.) Did she say it, or didn't she? And while we're on the subject, I could provide links (if I thought you would actually look at them) to other pro-TPP statements she's made. Are all of those quotations actually hoaxes by the evil corporate media (which are, presumably, part of a vast right-wing conspiracy promoting the candidacy of that longtime corporate darling, Bernie Sanders)?

If you do the same Google search and skim the results, you'll see that the "gold standard" quotation has also been reported by NPR, CNN, the Washington Post, and numerous other sources.

BUT if you discount all those sources as "right wing", how about Clinton's own State Department site? Go to "Remarks at Techport Australia" on the State Department website, giving the text of Secretary Clinton's remarks at Adelaide, South Australia on November 15, 2012, and you will find the quotation.

As for how Clinton was supposedly out front in opposing TPP (even though she still hasn't said she actually opposes it), you might take note of this letter that Bernie Sanders sent in 2011 -- while Clinton was still hailing TPP. That particular Sanders letter addresses the specific issue of access to medicines, but it's an exemplar of how progressive politicians and many NGOs have been voicing their concerns long before Clinton's tepid statement that a trade agreement should promote American jobs.

[cali]

36. Swoon. Jim, I think I love you.

You are so much better at this than I am. I just get so frustrated with dishonest crap.

[MaggieD]

48. But you are great at calling people you disagree with a liar!

So there is that.

[cali]

49. no, I am fairly good at calling bullshit, bullshit, however

and you are supremely good at slinging that substance



too scared to respond to Jim?

[MaggieD]

56. Oops, there you go again, popping off too soon

I already responded to him. I'm good at calling bullshit, too, by the way. Hence my OP. And I will keep doing it. So far you don't seem to have the chops to keep up, but maybe you will get better.

[MaggieD]

51. You should have actually read it.....

"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."

So are you saying that ALL trade agreements are automatically bad for the US? They are only good for the rest of the country, but bad for the United States? Do you advocate just making it illegal for US corps to sell or buy anything outside the United States?

I'd really love to know. Because so far I am not seeing you understand much at all about the global economy.

[Jim Lane]

66. Nice to see you're finally (albeit implicitly) conceding the "gold standard" quotation.

You've refused to do even that much for several days, and just in this thread you strongly implied that anyone asserting that Clinton had called the TPP "the gold standard" was a tool of the right-wing media. So, congratulations, you're making (very slow) progress toward addressing the real world instead of a Clinton-can-do-no-wrong bubble.

Now, as to your quotation -- I can't imagine why you boldfaced the 40% passage. That's been undisputed from the beginning.

Then you write:

So are you saying that ALL trade agreements are automatically bad for the US? They are only good for the rest of the country, but bad for the United States? Do you advocate just making it illegal for US corps to sell or buy anything outside the United States?

My answers: No, no, and no, and I'll add that nothing I've written comes close to raising any serious suspicion that I might hold the extreme positions you ask me about. Putting question marks at the end of your unsubstantiated ravings makes them only marginally less ridiculous.

I've written about the TPP. We know more about TPP than about TTIP, but there are strong similarities and I will probably go along with most people in treating them the same. (Some people will support both and some will oppose both; few will be split.)

Have there been trade agreements that were good for the U.S.? Absolutely. The most obvious example is the reduction in tariffs that occurred after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 were seen to have done great harm. Higher U.S. tariffs prompted retaliatory tariff increases by other countries. Putting an end to that trade war (through various bilateral and multilateral agreements) benefited everyone.

As numerous commentators have pointed out, though, tariffs are generally much lower today than they were before FDR took office. There's not all that much scope for promoting trade through tariff reduction. As a result, although the TPP has some provisions relating to tariffs, most of it is about non-tariff matters. Those are the provisions that have raised the most concern.

[cali]

73. You're just embarrassing yourself.

but hey, keep digging.

[deutsey]

134. Thank you for your informed and informative posts

[Aerows]

141. Excellent response, Jim Lane

To say that HRC is anything but hailing the TPP is ridiculous. That is a major reason why I do not trust her and cannot trust her.

[cascadiance]

28. Then she should have IMMEDIATELY said when entering the race that she is against Fast Track...

... as it is Fast Track that will put in place things like ISDS without any debate or amendment possible when the TPP comes to the congress under those rules.

WHY doesn't she come out and reject Fast Track? The only way congress can stop ISDS or other things she doesn't like about it is by rejecting the whole thing. If that is what she wants, then should be urging congress to reject both Fast Track and TPP together.

If she wants some modified version of TPP and can find things in it that she thinks are good, all the more reason to reject Fast Track legislation now, and to use her bully pulpit power to help this happen to Walk the Walk in addition to her Talking the Talk!

[MaggieD]

31. Why?

Why do you demand she criticize a sitting president when she has absolutely no vote in the matter?

[bvar22]

39. She won't be criticizing The President.

She will be criticizing BAD POLICY.

I've been a Democrat for a Looooong time,
and challenging a sitting president on BAD POLICY
is a long standing tradition in the Democratic Party.

[MaggieD]

46. Let's face it...

You wouldn't be satisfied unless she called him an evil corporatist. Which, of course, is a 180 from what the purists here said in 2007 when he was their newly anointed political demigod. LOL!

[bvar22]

57. Boy, you loaded more Buzz Words into one sentence that I've seen before.

Congratulations.

You Said:[font color=red]"You wouldn't be satisfied unless she called him an evil corporatist."[/font]
Absolute BS.


Missed the target by a mile.
You seem to have a very foggy (fairy tale) memory of past events.

The ONLY "purists" I see on DU are the hardcore Hillary acolytes.
The Left has been compromising for over 30 years while the "Centrists" have never moved a step in our direction.
I suspect that we will, once again, compromise and vote for someone who is more Republican than Democrat.

[Aerows]

143. As usual, bvar22, you get right to the heart of it

Bad Policy is independent of political party or personality - it is just plain bad policy.

[cali]

42. That is bullshit. She doesn't have to criticize the President. It's about policy not personalities

and she has a lot of influence and could bring that to bear to help defeat it.

You claim to know so much about politics, but you don't appear to know the most basic things.

[cascadiance]

64. No-o-o.... She could criticize the REPUBLICANS who support this piece of crap!

And she still could come out and say that she supports a lot of things about the TPP, but a few things in it that were put in are show stoppers for her, that she seems to ALREADY HAVE SAID that many are pointing out here!

And she could say that those who are against everything in the TPP who would vote down both the Fast Track and the ultimate TPP bill, would have less to lose than those that have some problems with the TPP and want maybe PART of it passed, which seems to be her position, and perhaps something that could lend some support to what Obama put in to it. But if Fast Track is passed, that is tacitly and endorsement of the things she says she is against in it, or tacitly a statement that it doesn't matter because she rejects the whole thing later. I suspect she is more in the former camp of that statement than the latter.

Voting for and supporting Fast Track is supporting EVERYTHING about the TPP bill as it is written now with no room for change. If she doesn't support the TPP bill completely, she should be advocating that Fast Track gets voted down.

Now just because Obama is a Democrat doesn't mean he can't be criticized for things that he does that are bad policy. And I've praised him on the good things he's done too. He is simply just WRONG on this one. What is motivating him to do this is still an open question, but it's hard for me to find a good reason for him supporting it.

I do think that it is probably no coincidence that the two largest and most damaging trade bills, NAFTA, and what now looks to be bigger in TPP were both signed in to law by Democrats. I think there's a reason for that. I think that if those bills had tried to be pushed through by a Republican president, you would have had a lot harder time getting it passed. Hell Ross Perot got a LOT of Republican support in rejecting NAFTA when he ran against Bush and Clinton who were in the pockets of those who wanted it passed and who were also making a lot of false promises of what it would deliver.

[Exilednight]

113. In your own words, it's a form of leadership and she

wants to be leader of the freeworld. Why should I want to vote for someone who doesn't want to take a leadership stand?

[MaggieD]

114. It's a form of leadership to bash...

.... Your boss while he is negotiating a deal? Not in the world I live in.

[Exilednight]

117. What world is that .... Russia? The reason we have a

Secretary of State is to advise the president and tell him things he doesn't want to hear. It's now the job of the SoS to be a sycophant?

Would you stand by as your boss made a bad decision that is more than likely going to bankrupt your company and put everyone you say you want to help out of work?

That's some really shitty leadership.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. and where is she on the issue this month?

[Jim Lane]

43. Too soon to say. Focus groups still being assembled and polled. (n/t)

[MaggieD]

45. Same place she has been for over a decade

But you are free to pretend otherwise.

[cali]

50. as I said, you're a champ when it comes to slinging it.

but you're free to keep doing that as it concerns your candidate- who hasn't demonstrated either leadership or political courage on this issue. Just hedging her bets.

[MaggieD]

53. And you're a champ when it comes to showing...

That you really have a very limited knowledge about the global economy, trade pacts, and politics in general.

And here is my copy and paste from my journal, which I saved just for purists like you that make that same dumb accusation about "my candidate." I will be happy to repeat it every time you make that dumb accusation.

* As I have repeated about 100 times now, I welcome ALL Democrats in the race. I don't believe in bashing any Democrat.

I will donate to every Dem in the primary (with the exception of Chafee if he runs). I believe in a robust primary process. The nomination is decided by the time my state holds one. I wil vote for the Democratic nominee in the general.

And now I will journal this so I can cut and paste it when "you folks" snarl at me because I won't pledge my fealty to your preferred candidate.

[Motown_Johnny]

75. Seriously? This has to be sarcasm.... right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-117249.html

^snip^

The 12-nation Pacific trade deal is the first major policy dilemma of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and she’s under pressure to cast aside her own past as a free-trade proponent and buck the current Democratic president in whose Cabinet she served.
Now, pressure is intensifying from Capitol Hill on the presumed Democratic standard-bearer.

Democratic lawmakers intent on preventing fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership are calling on Clinton to take a more definitive stance on the legislation, hoping that she can tip the scales against President Barack Obama’s position.



Merkley isn’t alone. A number of Democrats say their party’s front-runner should lay out her views and concerns with the so-called trade promotion authority bill that’s now dividing their party. The bill would give Obama the ability to finalize trade deals and Congress an up-or-down vote, essentially preventing lawmakers from making any changes.

That fast-track bill — which Clinton has yet to weigh in on — is a necessary first step for the administration to complete the largest trade agreement in American history. The TPP is an accord that could affect roughly 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. After a 20-6 vote in the Senate Finance Committee Wednesday night, the fast-track bill is expected to be approved by the full Senate within weeks. But the real question is whether enough House Democrats will join with Republicans to pass the measure.




http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-01/hillary-clinton-a-free-trader-or-not-depending-on-the-moment


^snip^

Three years ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised a proposed deal to reduce trade barriers among Pacific Rim nations as “the gold standard” for such pacts.

Now, the presidential candidate Clinton has nothing to say as President Barack Obama fights to win expanded negotiating authority to complete the agreement over furious opposition from organized labor and progressives in his own party.

Her silence on the premier economic issue dividing Democrats is consistent with a long history of wavering under pressure on trade. She has even alternately praised and criticized the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement signed by her husband in 1993, calling it good for America or a “mistake,” depending on the audience and circumstances.

Critics of the current deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, are frustrated by Clinton’s ambiguous stance as she tries to hold together a political coalition that includes party activists on the left and major financial supporters from business and Wall Street.

[still_one]

52. Don't confuse me with the facts

[jeff47]

55. Yeah, who was the Secretary of State who was negotiating the TPP from 2009 to 2013?

Can't quite remember who it was......

[Marr]

72. Poor Hillary-- such an outsider.

If only she could have a voice in things, we'd never be sold out with things like the TPP. Which are awesome so stop being such a purist!

[hrmjustin]

60. Posting positive news about Hillary. For shame!

[cali]

65. the problem is not that it's positive- I posted it yesterday-

It's that the op is saying things that are simply not true- not even remotely, like that she was one of the first to criticize the tpp. that is simply categorically false.

[delrem]

78. wow! so now it's OK for HRC supporters to criticize TPP?

Now everyone is happy to admit that we know something about it, including this brand spanking new fact that HRC has been the leading critic of TPP from long ago?

Just a *tiny* re-write of history, and look how the talking points change!

[cali]

79. the op is an amazing example of revisionist history.

[delrem]

80. "evolving" the HRC campaign talking points "to the left" requires a lot of revisionism.

But think of revisionism in positive terms, as in "new vision of history" rather than "falsification of history". OK? It's easy - just change an adjective and the sun shines in!

Also, PLEASE don't take HRC supporters to task for changing their tune re. criticizing the TPP -- which a few hours ago was (they said) known to nobody (except - and which they didn't say - corporate lobbyists and friends of the Koch's and Godman Sachs...), and so couldn't be criticized until it was published. And yesterday fast-track was OK!.

This is "evolution" in campaign rhetoric in real-time, cali. It's exciting to watch it! And to think, we'll have 18 more months to enjoy the full scope of it, in all it's +$2billion glory!

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. So am I reading this thread correctly? ...

HRC HAS, in fact, taken a position on TPP ... more than a year ago ... long before most knew and/or had commented on TPP. And that position emphasized, and was/is consistent with, the position that DUers, demanding that she state her position on; but, didn't know that she already had, hold?

But now that it has been made plain, HRC HAS taken a position on TPP that is consistent with DUer's criticisms of TPP, DUers have problems with her having taken that position?

Phew ... this is a tough Democratic crowd!

[cali]

82. no, you are not and she has not

she has not taken a position on it. that would entail a statement either in support of its passage or against it. her statement was equivocal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. This ...

Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."

Is pretty clear (though not detailed) criteria for what she would like to see in any TPP deal ... and since many claim she was writing the TPP, while SoS, we can pretty much assume, this is what she was writing.

Now, I know we keep going back and forth on this; but, who makes statements in support or opposition to the passage of something (beyond, possibly, establishing the criteria for acceptance), before one knows, exactly what is in that something? ... Well, it is clear who does; but, the "why would they" still has me puzzled ...

The final agreement is released ... you read it ... if it addresses this:

Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."

(your criteria for acceptance) in a favorable manner ... You issue an unequivocal statement of support, and encourage Congress to pass it ... if not, you issue an unequivocal support that you do not support it, and encourage Congress to vote it down. To do either, before reading the finalized agreement is premature ... whether the negotiations are on the 1st or 101st round of negotiations, unless of course you know how many rounds of negotiations there will be.)

Seems pretty simple to me!

[MaggieD]

83. She could announce she personally found a cure for cancer

... And they'd still bash her.

[cali]

84. your favorite substance really is straw

keep digging, Maggie!

[MaggieD]

87. Come on - admit it

There is absolutely nothing she could do or say that you would not criticize. LOL - you know I'm right.

[seabeyond]

86. ya, you read it right. kinda like we are keeping all this honest.... nt

[cali]

89. complete fail.

she has said that the TPP is the gold standard. She has offered some mild criticism. that's it.

[MaggieD]

92. Way to semi-quote half a sentence

LOL!

[jeff47]

101. The part you're leaving out is what she did between 2009 and 2013.

Which was be the Secretary of State, and thus responsible for negotiating the TPP she now doesn't like.

If we are to believe her new-found dislike of the TPP, what the hell was she doing the previous 4 years?

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. No. I think that's covered here ...

Is pretty clear (though not detailed) criteria for what she would like to see in any TPP deal ... and since many claim she was writing the TPP, while SoS, we can pretty much assume, this is what she was writing ...

And, here:

The final agreement is released ... you read it ... if it addresses this:

Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."


(your criteria for acceptance) in a favorable manner ... You issue an unequivocal statement of support, and encourage Congress to pass it ... if not, you issue an unequivocal support that you do not support it, and encourage Congress to vote it down. To do either, before reading the finalized agreement is premature ... whether the negotiations are on the 1st or 101st round of negotiations, unless of course you know how many rounds of negotiations there will be.)

Seems pretty simple to me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6604855

[jeff47]

104. No, actually it isn't covered there.

In the quote in the OP, Clinton complains about the lack of currency manipulation protections. As if the TPP is something other people are doing.

As SoS, she was instrumental in negotiating the TPP. Even if she didn't do any of it herself, she was the one in charge of that part of the government.

So why doesn't it have the currency protections she wanted? Why did she not put them in? Was she bad at her job, or is she telling a different story now?

(This also completely glosses over that the "currency manipulation" issue really doesn't help labor much, but is absolutely vital to captial. But instead of wandering into that, I've been asking why she didn't get them in while she was in charge)

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Okay ...

Apparently, your negotiations have gotten you anything you sought.

You must be a great negotiator.

[jeff47]

106. If that were true, saying she couldn't get them in the negotiations

would make the position in the OP stronger, and thus a better political position now. "This needed to be in the treaty, but the other countries wouldn't agree to it". That would show that she really believed in the position and tried to make it happen.

Instead, her statement is as if she was completely unconnected from the negotiations. As if the TPP negotiations is something she never had direct control over. But she did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Okay.

[Jim Lane]

118. Notice that your defense of Hillary is completely inconsistent with the OP's defense of Hillary.

In fact, right in this thread we see three count 'em three different Hillary stances, for maximum campaign appeal:

* For the voters (and, especially, campaign contributors) who like the TPP, we have Hillary of Adelaide, who called it "the gold standard" for trade agreements.

* For the voters who dislike the TPP, we have Hillary of the book (see the OP), who has been critical of TPP since even before it was cool.

I'll note in passing that some candidates and prospective candidates take the novel approach of opposing the TPP by saying that they are against the TPP, and also against fast-tracking it. Clinton, although allegedly so ahead of the curve in opposition, doesn't do it that way, and instead contents herself with bold calls to "increase prosperity" and the like. The reason is that to come right out and oppose it would conflict with the third Hillary:

* For the voters who don't want to try to follow the details of a hugely complex debate, and/or who are suspicious of MNCs but who want to trust Obama, we have Hillary of the fog, who, despite the extensive published (and undenied) leaks and despite her multiyear service as the nation's top foreign policy officer, just doesn't know enough about this international agreement to say anything about it, or at least not anything that might alienate anyone.

Even if you find the position of Hillary of the fog to be plausible, as far as the TPP itself goes, she does have a related problem that's harder to rationalize away: fast track. You can look at the wealth of available information about the TPP and nevertheless choose to disagree with the elected officials and NGOs that have come out against it. In that vein, you can choose to argue that supporting or opposing the TPP "before reading the finalized agreement is premature." The problem is that the finalized text of TPA (the fast-track bill) is available to be read right this minute. (Do you want to read it? It's S.995 and here's the full text, courtesy of THOMAS, the Library of Congress's legislative information website.)

That particular bill will almost certainly have passed or failed well before January 20, 2017, but a candidate who wanted to give us an idea of how he or she would govern could certainly address a major current issue and say Yea or Nay.

[Fumesucker]

123. Great post, you should put that up as an OP, I'd K&R it...

[Ichingcarpenter]

133. I agree

and its not a passive aggressive debating tactic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. Don't the three positions reflect three different points in time? ...

The problem is that the finalized text of TPA (the fast-track bill) is available to be read right this minute. (Do you want to read it? It's S.995 and here's the full text, courtesy of THOMAS, the Library of Congress's legislative information website.)

I have read summaries of the TPA ... I do not have a problem with Fast Track, even as I have not formed an opinion on TPP.

Why would anyone want to allow THIS congress to add amendments to anything?

[Jim Lane]

136. Unlike her vote on the Iraq War Resolution, she has not said she made a mistake.

If your comment is that Hillary has said different things at different times, then you're agreeing with my point (in #118) that your defense of Hillary is inconsistent with the OP's defense of Hillary. Of course, there's no requirement that you align your position with MaggieD's. I was merely noting that, in MaggieD's view, Hillary is now "critical of TPP", and has been since "before it was cool" (see the OP), and is in the &quot s)ame place she has been for over a decade" (see #45).

People defending Hillary's position can be mutually inconsistent precisely because Hillary has not been clear and forthright in her views. Her most recent statement on TPP is so bland and generic (for prosperity, against weakening national security) that it could be endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and everyone in between. She hasn't come close to saying anything like "I once hailed TPP as the gold standard but I now see that I was wrong."

As for fast track, I differ from many TPP/TPA opponents in not having a problem with the no-amendments rule. My problem with fast track is the "fast" part. Congress will have a huge mass of material dumped on it for review and analysis. There's no reason to set artificial time limits on the legislative process. U.S. participation in the negotiations was announced by the Bush Administration in 2008. The negotiators have missed multiple target dates for completion. These facts show that there's no screaming urgency that mandates a deadline for Congressional action. Fast track is especially unfair where the people on one side (TPP proponents in government and in industry) have had access to the negotiations and the drafts for months, while those on the other side have had to make do with leaks (pooh-poohed by many here, including you) and with the limited Congressional access (no copying, no note-taking, no sharing with staffers or with outside experts).

But, getting back to the subject of the OP, namely where does candidate Clinton stand: I would actually have more respect for her if she expressly adopted your point of view. I would disagree but at least I'd know where she stood. You (presumably) don't have staffers helping you to write DU posts, and you, all by your lonesome, managed to write, "I do not have a problem with Fast Track...." It's telling that Hillary Clinton can't even bring herself to say that much. With fast track, as with TPP, we don't know whether she agrees with Obama, on the one hand, or with O'Malley and Sanders, on the other hand.

[treestar]

128. Yep, they don't want her to have been "right"

[Enrique]

132. yes, you are

it's true that the OP quotes a passage from a book where Hillary is supportive of the deal, and tells us that the passage shows she is critical of it.

A number of people see through it, including myself.

What about you, 1StrongBlackMan, is the OP true or is the OP false? Not based on politics, but based on the words and thinking about what they mean? In that passage, and in "Hard Choices" in general, is Hillary for or against TPP?

edit: Actually, in part of the excerpt, which is not bolded, Hillary does in fact criticize TPP, where she opposes the "provisions sought by business interests." Since we are talking about what she actually wrote, I have to acknowledge that, but I also have to say it is the kind of having it both ways statement that I put about zero stock in. There is a good chance that Obama himself is making that same kind of statement even as he is putting all his efforts into passing the deal. But like I said, that's my judgement.

[1StrongBlackMan]

137. From the words from the book (excerpted) ...

She is lying out the criteria for a TPP deal she could support.

[Enrique]

138. I agree

but the question isn't about that imaginary TPP, the one without special provisions for corporations. The question is about the TPP that powerful people including Obama are pushing for. People want to know her position on that one, the real one.

To be more honest, I personally don't want to know her position. Everything I see tells me she is for TPP (the real one). I want her to change her position due to political pressure. I want her to come out against it because she thinks she has to win the nomination.

[GummyBearz]

85. Is this like "I voted against it before I voted for it"?

?

[MaggieD]

90. You realize she voted against CAFTA - right?

In 2005. That would be a decade ago.

Are any of you concerned that as you call her republican lite, you sound like full blown republicans? You grabbed that line right from the republican attacks against John Kerry.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. No. More like ...

"This is my position on TPP ... I'll wait until I get a chance to read what is in the final agreement before I come out with whether I support the final agreement, or not."

[MaggieD]

98. Exactly - some people call that....

... a responsible leadership quality.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Nope ...

Americans seem to love them some "shoot from the hip"/"Deciderish" types ... considered judgment is effete, and clearly a sign of weakness.

[ucrdem]

91. She was also a Democrat before it became optional. nt

[cali]

93. Bernie is still not a democrat

and if you want to play this game...

While Hillary was a young republican, Bernie was a student organizer for SNCC and marching on Washington for civil rights..

[MaggieD]

95. Seems he can't make up his mind

He says he is running as a Democrat but is still listing himself as an independent. So which is it? It's strange, that's for sure.

[ucrdem]

108. Yes we noticed.

What could go wrong?

[PowerToThePeople]

112. rec

#WeNeedBernie

[morningfog]

116. Well, nothing has changed. But, if that's all ya got....

That's all ya got!

[woo me with science]

97. War is Peace!

Hillary has always been at war with Eastasia...er...the TPP.

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

[font color=red]Reject Third Way propaganda and brazen rewriting of history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

[/font color]

[MaggieD]

99. Is that what you call these links?

Because here is what you got:

1. HRC's role in the TPP was the same as every SoS in a potential U.S. trade pact. No more, no less. It's an international negotiation.

2. It's not ""Hillary's" TPP, and a post by someone else who claims that doesn't make that so.

3. Yeah, that's what she has said is wrong with it - it will hurt US workers. I think that is exactly the same reason she voted against CAFTA in 2005.

[woo me with science]

102. Catch-22...

i.e., Why you are flailing here:

All corporate politicians have to offer the public is either (1) their corporate, right-wing policy records, or (2) lies.

If they *acknowledge* and run on their corporate-corrupted right-wing policy records, they alienate the public, who are sick to death of greed and corporate exploitation.

But if they lie and *deny* their corporate, right-wing policy records, they alienate the public, who are sick to death of lies and manipulation.

That is why Bernie Sanders is such a threat to the corporate-corrupted politicians.

Americans have become accustomed to the flat-out lies, rewriting of history, and propaganda assaults of corporate government as business as usual. Bernie is a blast of fresh air making us aware by sheer contrast how sick and predatory the standard, manipulative MO of our corporate politicians really is.

Bernie Sanders reminds us of what our representatives are *supposed* to be. He is an *honest* politician who does not campaign on one agenda and then govern from another. That is why the PTB and their propaganda brigades are so threatened by him. He reminds Americans what we have a right to expect from our representatives....but never get to see from our corporate politicians except in their lying corporate advertisements.

Thanks for this illustration of the problem. I decline to kick this sort of OP again.

[betterdemsonly]

107. That looks like an argument for tpp

She is claiming it controls currency manipulation which she says she is against. Obama's been saying that too and so far as I know he supports tpp.

I guess we are using corporate media lessons and writing a headline claiming the opposite of what the actual story says.

[morningfog]

115. So her criticism of the TPP was to support an aspect of it?

[cali]

124. One of the most Orwellian posts ever seen on DU

It's really quite disgraceful

[Aerows]

142. I know, I have to laugh at that

Just ludicrous.

[Jesus Malverde]

119. President Obama on free trade

"NAFTA was a mistake"

What happened to this guy?!

[treestar]

127. All the denial is hilarious

Hillary can't have been right! Oh no!

[cali]

130. there's no denial. And if you can respond to one of Jim Lane's

posts in this thread, that would be... interesting. do try.

The op is filled with misrepresentations. Hillary was not critical of the tpp early on. And her criticism has been very mild compared to her praise. She has not taken a position on it. She's simply hemmed and hawed. I'd be thrilled if she opposed fast track and the tpp. She has a lot of influence on congress. She won't.

It's very, very telling that you can't respond at all to the specifics that refute the op's claims. in fact, that what's funny, tree.

[cyberswede]

131. Can you explain something for me?

The bold statements below read to me like she's saying currency manipulation is bad, and the TPP will regulate it. Isn't that then supportive of the TPP? What am I not seeing?

"Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."

*the idea is that the TPP would create more enforceable rules around currency manipulation that is currently occurring in Asian markets. Currency manipulation distorts trade flows by artificially lowering the cost of U.S. imports and raising the cost of U.S. exports, and that causes trade deficits and lost jobs in the country or countries that do not manipulate the currency.

[Jim Lane]

147. Explanation: This is a mix of Clinton quotation and someone else's commentary

Within your excerpt, note where the quotation marks are. Clinton wrote the first part you bolded -- "We should be focused on ending currency manipulation...." It's a generic statement reflecting the view of many (though not all) economists that currency manipulation is a problem.

Then at the end of that paragraph there's a close quotation mark.

You next boldface "*the idea is that the TPP would create more enforceable rules around currency manipulation" but in MaggieD's post that passage isn't inside the quotation marks. It also isn't found in the HuffPo article that MaggieD linked. In other words, MaggieD, after lecturing us about not having read Clinton's book, then juxtaposed a quotation from the book with her (MaggieD's) own fantasy that the TPP would regulate currency manipulation.

In fact, as I pointed out in post #40, the TPP says absolutely nothing about currency manipulation. My source for that statement was Michael Froman, the U.S. Trade Representative -- i.e., the guy who's principally responsible for representing the U.S. in the TPP negotiations. MaggieD responded by quoting some of the people who would like currency manipulation to be regulated, but Clinton doesn't say that it actually is, and Froman says that it actually isn't.

So, what it comes down to is that, when Clinton was Secretary of State, she praised the TPP. When she was writing her book (when she obviously had a view toward her impending campaign), she took note of some of the criticisms of TPP, but only to the extent of agreeing with vague generalities about ideal goals -- a trade deal should generate good jobs, should increase prosperity, should not weaken our national security, should regulate currency manipulation, etc. In a book titled Hard Choices, she limited herself to platitudes that just about everyone could accept. She never applied those standards to the actual negotiations, and she still hasn't. She just made noises that sounded sort of sympathetic to some of the concerns of TPP critics, so that her ardent defenders like MaggieD could suddenly "discover" that Clinton had been leading the opposition for the past decade.

I don't blame you for being confused by all this double-talk and revisionism.

[cyberswede]

148. Thank you!

I appreciate your thorough explanation, and things are clearer to me now.

[peacebird]

129. Why does she not speak out now against the TPP?

[MaggieD]

140. Already covered in the thread

[cali]

144. no good reasons. some in this thread claim she'd be attacking the president

and couldn't possibly do that.

I think it's that she doesn't want alienate deep pocketed donors and because she actually does support it.

[djean111]

139. By the way, I have been posting criticism of the TPP here since 2013, so "almost a year ago"

doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. Others here have been posting against it too, probably before I did - Cali comes to mind. Warren and Grayson have been against it for years. So that "before it was cool" thing is a bit silly.

[Aerows]

145. I wholeheartedly disagree

and I think that this post is highly disingenuous.

It will do the opposite of what you state it will do, and many other posters have presented evidence to that fact.

[cali]

149. kick

this is the kind of propaganda that more than a few of HRC's more ardent supporters, are throwing at us.

[SidDithers]

150. DU rec...nt

Sid

[lewebley3]

151. You need to send this to Sanders followers, the are telling lies about Hillary on TPP!!

Sanders follower willfully want mislead the Dem's about Hillary!