General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLEFT Presses Clinton To CHOOSE SIDES On Obama Trade Pact
Liberal groups are insisting that Hillary Clinton take a clear stand against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact that is a crucial part of President Obama’s second-term agenda. They say Clinton, whose positions on trade have zigged and zagged during a long political career, should move beyond populist generalities and let voters know where she stands. “This is a key test for Hillary Clinton. It is time for her to stand up and choose a side,” said Charles Chamberlain, the executive director of Democracy for America. “This is the first pass/fail test of her candidacy,” said Murshed Zaheed, deputy political director of CREDO Action, another liberal group. “It really is, ‘What side are you on?’” emphasized Jacob Swenson-Lengyel, communications lead for National People’s Action. The TPP is the biggest trade deal the United States has negotiated since the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.
NAFTA was finalized by President Bill Clinton’s administration, and has been a bugbear for opponents of trade ever since. Critics of the TPP argue it is cut from the same cloth as NAFTA, and Democrats in the House and Senate are opposing Obama’s call for “fast-track” legislation that would ease negotiations over TPP and its passage by Congress. Hillary Clinton backed the TPP as Obama’s secretary of State, but hasn’t taken a clear position on the campaign trail as she seeks to win over Democratic grassroots voters. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security,” Clinton responded last month to a question lobbed by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. “We have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive,” Clinton added. Back in 2012, Clinton praised the framework for the TPP as setting “the gold standard in trade agreements.” Activists on the left have a host of problems with the TPP, which would create a free-trade area between the United States and 11 other nations, most of them in Asia and Latin America.
One key objection is to the setting-up of a legal process by which corporations could appeal to special tribunals if they believed their rights were being infringed by the laws of a signatory nation. To many on the left, it sounds like an idea that would give corporations power to undercut national sovereignty, and reduce labor and environmental protections. Hillary Clinton’s language on free trade has shifted markedly over the years In her first memoir Living History, published in 2003, Clinton called NAFTA one of “Bill’s successes.” Yet in a presidential debate during her first White House run in 2008, she declared, “I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning.” As a senator, Clinton voted in favor of trade deals with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco and Oman. She also backed an agreement with Peru in 2007, although she was not present in the Senate when it was voted upon. But she voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005. Further complicating matters, if Clinton wants to embrace the left-wing position now, she would also have to break with the Obama administration in which she was a central figure. “Not being clear on where you stand is problematic,” said Chamberlain. “For Hillary Clinton specifically, here is someone who…has a history of supporting bad trade deals in the past. And you have a White House that claims Clinton backs them.” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, insisted that Clinton could not stay on the fence on TPP without suffering negative consequences among grassroots Democrats. And he placed her choice in a broader context.
“On most issues, like student debt and wages, the question for Hillary Clinton will not be about which direction she goes — but whether she goes big or goes small,” he said, “Endorsing fast track or the underlying TPP would certainly be going in the wrong direction but many could say the same thing about staying on the sideline when a fight is happening.” But not everyone on the left is eager to put ultimatums before Clinton, who is the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. One prominent liberal voice on free trade, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, declined an interview request about Clinton’s stance on the TPP. A spokesman for the AFL-CIO also declined to speak about Clinton’s role on the issue, instead citing a speech given by the organization’s president, Richard Trumka, late last month. Trumka never referred to Clinton by name. But he did state that “the labor movement opposes fast track. We expect those who seek to lead our nation forward to oppose fast track. There is no middle ground, and the time for deliberations is drawing to a close.” Left-wingers who have no such reticence about naming Clinton share Trumka’s sentiment in one respect. Clinton needs to speak now, they say, when the debate over TPP and fast track is still being waged, rather than waiting till the issue cools off.
cont'
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/242206-left-presses-clinton-to-choose-sides-on-obama-trade-pact
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Segami
(14,923 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)"I wasn't really lying, you just didn't really understand how to interpret my half-truths and walls of silence."
Hillary Clinton thinks we are idiots.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)I can't imagine any senior citizen would vote for it.
And it's time for Hillary let us know.
We know Bernies position.
Segami
(14,923 posts)for her advisors, polling results and focus groups to instruct her what position she should take on TPP....
cali
(114,904 posts)but it's not only her advisors, it's her funding base; they also strongly support it. It doesn't matter what the public's position is.
Hillary is pro-tpp. Only a fool or someone in complete denial would question that.
Segami
(14,923 posts)the 
thingy.....
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)For two reasons:
1- I think Obama is right on the issue.
2- she already stated in the past the TPP was right, and I don't like flip-floppers.
The far left dictates on mainstream Democrats are getting out of hand.
I think Clinton is a shoe-in if this bullying stops.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And the influx continues. Complete with the "far left" smear.
It's just an amazing phenomenon, the constant influx of posters spouting the corporate line, and the steady, wholly unnatural increase in the ratio of corporate to traditional Democratic posters.
It's just magical.
States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines. Propaganda is standard MO of our government and our political party machines now.
The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242
The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454
Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741
Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351
The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111
Snowden: ‘Training Guide’ for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/
Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796
Editor of major German newspaper says he planted stories for CIA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026163872
Salon: Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)It's intellectually cool to be radical, I suppose.
be it far left of 'Tea Party'. But that's just not the US electorate.
You or the Tea Party can think it is, but it's not.
Don't believe me? Just try Bernie and see where it gets the Democratic Party.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)How do we know it's a lie and a talking point, rather than the truth?
Simple.
Because Third Way corporate politicians routinely LIE their way through campaigns pretending to be more liberal than they actually are. They mouth empty promises about fighting for a public option or putting on comfortable walking shoes for unions or taking on criminal banks. They *always* pivot leftward in their rhetoric during campaigns in order to win votes, because they know that voters are significantly to the left of the predatory corporate agenda they actually stand for.
Thus, we get the spectacle of Hillary now claiming to care about income inequality, even though she is intimately connected with, overwhelmingly backed and funded by, the predator class that drives obscene inequality in this nation. Claiming to care even while she supports H1B visas that destroy the jobs of Americans. Claiming to give a damn even though she is an author of perhaps the most predatory, antidemocratic "free trade" agreement in this nation's history, that will destroy American jobs, force Americans to compete with Third World workers, and cut the wages of fully NINETY PERCENT of working Americans:
Hillary pushes for increases in H1B visas and outsourcing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405669
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
And thus we get the insulting theater of Hillary now claiming to want to end mass incarceration in this nation, when her entire history and "co-presidency" relentlessly escalated imprisonment of Americans in this country:The Clinton Dynasty's Horrific Legacy: More Drug War, More Prisons
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/clinton-dynasty-horrific-legacy-more-drug-war-more-prisons
Corporate politicians lie and manipulate. The corporate MO by definition is to manipulate and advertise to win power and profit, not to represent anybody else. That is also why they depend on dishonest propaganda machines, "personas" on social media and political discussion boards, to distribute their dishonest talking points. Corporations advertise. They don't represent.
Corporatists have poured untold dollars into narrowing the debate and propagandizing the public into believing that corporate "solutions" are the only possible solutions. Corporate politicians lie and try to tie Social Security to the deficit, and they push trade agreements that assault Medicare, even though greater than 80 percent of Americans across party lines want to protect these social safety nets. Bernie Sanders threatens to shatter all that predatory lying and speak the truth to the nation: that our system is deeply corrupt, and that vicious predatory corporate policies have been a CHOICE all along.
Now, you have a nice day.[font color=red]Propaganda is a low, disreputable occupation. Reject obvious Third Way talking points. [/font color]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Way to body slam that one, Woo.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Prove McGovern won. Find some others to prove they won. If only the mean Third Way would hand the money over to the left, the left could win, seems to be the complaint.
If really left candidates could win, they could raise the money needed, since they'd have a lot of people who wanted them in.
Post like this demand that the money be raised by "centrists" so they can give it to the "more correct" left.
Nothing stops the left from building a larger base by getting the message out and fundraising.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Anyway, all politicians do lie some of the time. I fear it goes with the job.
IMHO, the key point is, which can be relied on to accomplish a relatively decent job?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I see you're back, with Third Way talking points just as familiar and insulting as those in your last post!
Yorktown threatens not to vote for Hillary if she "reneges" on Obama's TPP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6683618
You open with great chutzpah here, too. Yeah, those unstable, emotional populists. Surely their offense at being LIED TO is merely an overemotional response to economic crisis. Certainly they could not have any hope or expectation that those seeking to represent them in government would show them some basic respect and not feed them deliberate horseshit!
The next sentence of your post is textbook "Third Way Blase." The attempt to normalize bad behavior by politicians by pretending that we have no right to expect otherwise. When you can no longer deny that your candidate is corrupt and a deliberate liar, I guess that's the only possible defense to try. It's certainly a defense we are seeing more and more, shamelessly, from corporate politicians and their mouthpieces:The ugly tactic of "Third Way Blase" in corporate political messaging
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6686453
In fact, that would make a GREAT bumper sticker for Hillary, inspired by the helpful messaging of her supporters:[font size=7][font color=red]"All candidates lie!"[/font color][/font size]
Thank goodness we have Bernie in the race now. I think this nation had *almost* forgotten what honesty and straightforwardness look like, and what people have a right to expect, from applicants to be their representatives in a democratic political system. Now we have a reminder that is amplified by sheer contrast to the outright defense of lying you offer here for your corporate candidate.
Goodbye, Yorktown.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)But if you think that all the sentences said by politicians truly reflect what they think and what they will do, I have a bridge to sell you.
And calling my post insulting is only an indication of thin skin. I am really cool, even tempered and not out to 'get' anyone.
Ease up.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)ask a dishonest question instead?
We need the practice.
frylock
(34,825 posts)LOVE the "Radical" assertion.
That's really special 
Any other aspersions you'd like to cast today on those who are against a trade agreement we can't even read before it is passed, or those that are tired of business as usual where the 99% get screwed?
Radical, far-left, YOU JUST SEE WHAT THAT GETS YOU - President TEABAGGER!
LMAO.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)the TPP would hurt small-time farmers and other "little people", big time.
I can only assume it would be the same for the US and other signatory countries.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)than the countries with a very low level of economic development.
I can't believe that Japan, Australia, and New Zealand citizens aren't screaming at the top of their lungs for their governments to stay the hell out of it, because it will hurt them just as much as it will hurt us!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Farmers know about it because it is discussed in agricultural newspapers and such, but the average citizen doesn't seem to know much about it. There have been anti-TPP demonstrations here in the past, though, and there's going to be an anti-TPP rally in Tokyo next week.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)From your question, you seem to say it's either far-left or teabagger?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Your laughable assertions that those that support Sanders are radical and far left, then your chiding "see what that gets you" comment.
All you need to do is scroll up to see what you said, if you don't recall making post #16.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)First, my "laughable assertions that those that support Sanders are radical and far left" is based solely on what I read here at DU. Lots of people express support for Sanders on the grounds that they define themselves as radical.
As for my "chiding "see what that gets you" comment", it's just plain common sense: elections are won at the center. Do you think Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or one Evangelical GOP candidate have one chance in hell to win the presidency? Let the GOP choose one of those, and see what it gets them.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Not me, I just replied to it.
If you now claim to be confused by it, so be it.
Condescending "see what it gets you" and "I guess it's intellectually cool to be a radical" isn't going to sway anyone.
Claiming that you are the arbiter of "plain common sense" when you don't appear to realize that making patronizing statements is not an effective strategy is rather ironic, don't you think?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)When you oppose liberal to teabagger, you imply Obama is a teabagger because he isn't a liberal.
You see condescencion in "see what it gets you" and "I guess it's intellectually cool to be a radical". That's just your thin skin. I do tend to favor one liners over long measured philosophical texts, but that's an opinion board, not the House of Commons.
As for
I would disagree with that sentence on many counts.
First, having common sense doesn't mean being subtle about tones of the conversation.
That in itself kills your sentence.
Second, I do not claim to be its 'arbiter', but people usually credit me with a reasonable share of common sense.
Third, about patronizing, see first paragraph. I contest the term applies to what I wrote.
Last, I do not have a 'strategy' here, I'm chatting on a board, exchanging ideas.
No agenda. No animosity.
Let's see:
I have thin skin.
You are reasonable.
And now you are accusing me of calling President Obama a teabagger.
Isn't that special.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts) Marr
(20,317 posts)All these new posters, all so very pro-TPP! What a coincidence.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Because I openly hate, hate with every fiber of my being, Hillary Clinton who I know from when I was a community-development activist in NYC and she was my Senator. I've been vocal about never ever ever voting for her unless the question was "Who should we fling into the volcano to appease Tūtū Pele?" (Just so you know where I am coming from. To be clear though, she wouldn't want my support...she doesn't like me either.)
But. But but but but...after her declaring an anti-Citizen's United litmus test for SCOTUS justices and my belief that strong primary campaigns by Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders will pull her left-of-center--if she repudiates the TPP and declares that she opposes it and will never revive that POS TPA or any other anti-worker, anti-environment FTA, then I will hold my nose and vote for her in the GE if I have to.
I'm still hoping she loses the primary to a real Democrat. (Yes, I consider the Independent (Socialist) in the primaries to be more of a Democrat than HRC.)
1.) I know Obama is wrong about TPP.
2.) The ability to change one's mind based on new information is evidence of an highly-intelligent, discerning mind. It makes her more, not less, qualified to be President.
We are the mainstream...it's center-right interlopers like you who are the infidels and quislings destroying this party.
She doesn't deserve the nomination if she can't stand this "bullying" as you put it. Further though, the Hillary Clinton I know is not a fragile flower that can't stand criticism or needs anybody to imply she's not up to playing a little rough politic. I daresay she'd despise you and not welcome your support anymore than she likes me or terribly-cares if she has my support.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Just wow.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Besides, I enjoy being mischievous. Here, it meant highlighting your choice of words.
marble falls
(71,936 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)To hell with flip-floppers.
If she undoes Obama's work, what's the point?
marble falls
(71,936 posts)But in no way would I ever consider not voting for them in the face of what the Teapublicans have in store for us. Please reconsider the sitting on the hands thing if its the choice of Clinton/Cruz, Clinton/Bush etc.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Btw, I think he was very good.
Your opinion?
cali
(114,904 posts)people close to her keep saying that. I have no reason to doubt them and every reason to believe it. Her big banker funders strongly support it. I imagine her campaign has reassured them that she supports it but can't speak in support of it now. Clinton will continue to equivocate and give mealy mouthed non-answers- when she addresses it at all. As the head of her campaign, Podesta said, "can't you just make it go away". In addition, organizations very closely tied to her like Podesta's Americans for Progress (home to her economic advisers) and Brookings, strongly support it. You have to be a completely gullible sucker to think she doesn't support it.
<snip>
Asked about Clinton’s TPP position at a recent Bloomberg News conference, Jim Bacchus, former Democratic congressman from Florida, said he is “sure Hillary will get to all of these things and I think she has a good sense to be for trade as part of her overall approach to America’s economic future.”
Later at the same conference, Bob Hormats, who served as Clinton’s under secretary of state, said he could not speak on behalf of Clinton, but emphasized that his former boss “understands very clearly that there are enormous trade opportunities in Asia and creating jobs.”
Hormats now serves as vice chairman of Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm founded by Henry Kissinger that advises multinational corporations on trade issues.
In Congress, Bacchus was a lead negotiator for NAFTA and later served as chief judge of the World Trade Organization. Bacchus, who now works on trade issues as the Global Practice Chair of the lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, said he was the first of Florida’s congressional delegation to endorse Bill Clinton’s bid for the presidency, a supporter for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and a strong supporter of her current presidential campaign.
<snip>
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/24/tpp-proponents-close-hillary-clinton-remain-optimistic-will-support-controversial-trade-agreements/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)[font size=3] Orwell: "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." [/font size]
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Let's keep pretending her record of cozying with Wall Street and working to NEGOTIATE this sack of predatory shit doesn't even exist!
Just stunning, the denial we are encouraged to nurse.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761
Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank
How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647
Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441
On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar
Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29
The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257
Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136
Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279
Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343
Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285
How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611
Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071
Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575
Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986
Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9
cali
(114,904 posts)Such a steaming pile.
She should have the guts to stand up for her position and just say she support the tpp. She doesn't have the political courage to do that.
antigop
(12,778 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)These two quotes.
Even if she comes out against it publicly, can we trust her to keep her word?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... by doing so, then an argument can be made from her camp that she took a stand and actually did something to help back up her stance. If she were to do that, I might reconsider looking at her as a candidate.
Without something like that though, I simply don't trust very ambiguous rhetoric or lack of such that she's engaged in now with a past that shows times when she's worked against us on these free trade programs and has explicitly supported "indentured servant" work programs like H-1B visa program expansion that along with the outsourcing policies that are enabled through trade pacts like NAFTA and TPP serve only the wealthy classes and not the working classes of America or even those of other countries that don't use things like VAT taxes (pseudo tariff mechanisms) to protect their workers, that we don't and suffer for because we don't.
840high
(17,196 posts)never vote for her.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... just not here at home, where she knows it's unpopular.
I mean really, would you trust her if she came out against it today?
Here, in her own words ...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
She helped write it.
But we need to wait to find out if she supports it!
Just breathtaking, the chutzpah of the Orwellian messaging we are fed....
Sancho
(9,205 posts)I was in the car listening to reporters over a week ago stating that Hillary and Obama met and agreed it was best for his agenda and her campaign to avoid criticizing each other over TPP, pipelines, the mid-East, emails, Benghazi, and policy issues. They get along and worked together (if you remember). If I find a link I'll post it. If something is on a national radio show, I wonder why it's not picked up by The Hill? (see the link below as an explanation).
She has openly provided a platform statement on trade agreements, and there is no political advantage to providing statements that someone will attack no matter what is said. She has already said that she would not support an agreement that hurt American workers. Hillary is not a Senator now, so she does not have access to the TPP (even as a visitor to read it), so detailed comments would be premature. When she has a specific statement her campaign will issue it, but meanwhile she will let the TPP play out and leave Obama to his effort.
Finally, don't fall prey to the GOP traps:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html
cali
(114,904 posts)first of all, she knows better than most what's in it. She had access to it as it was being negotiated- for years- and she knows what the priorities of the USTR negotiators have been.
She provided a mealy mouthed meaningless statement on it. She waffles and obfuscates. And not everything should be about what provides her with a political advantage or political cover. How about some leadership from her? And not just on issues where the public led like immigration and marriage equality. Following is not leading.
No, opposing the TPP is not premature. It's late in the day to come out with a position.
And I've opposed Clinton for years and years. I'm a little tired of being told I'm falling into some GOP trap.
I oppose her because she's a centrist on many issues and these days being a centrist means you're on the right. She's a military hawk and she "evolves" on issues.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)NPR and the two reporters were not "baloney"! They were dead on to report what they did. It made sense and was insightful commentary.
Just because you have a problem with Hillary does not change the facts I posted. You are the one who wanted a "sane" discussion, but you don't ever listen or objectively pay attention.
First, the reporters specifically said that Hillary and Obama agreed it was was in their mutual interest to avoid going after each other on some issues at this time. Do you dispute the report? If so, you should write to NPR.
Second, Hillary probably knows what she negotiated while SoS, but not officially what has happened since then. You do know what she advocated for in the TPP which may on may not have become part of the TPP. She may have wanted things in or out that never ended up in the current version of the policy. Do you know? She is not going to say while her supporter (Obama) is still trying to move forward. Heck, she may even be legally unable to disclose things from the TPP.
Other than a statement that she has made to oppose any trade agreement that hurts American workers, it is politically premature and wrong to make a statement on the TPP. You would not become a Hillary supporter even if she ranted about hating the TPP now. You would not believe her or some other rationalizing. There are LOTS of independents and purple state voters who are not convinced the TPP is as wrong as many DUers, so she needs to pick her battles in order to win - do you want Jeb in the White House? Being a smart politician is not a bad politician.
Maybe you see Hillary as a "centrist", but to the majority of people she is far left - but women and immigrants and some other groups will still vote for her if they think she is the best choice for them.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)LOL we have entered the twilight zone! You are delusional, sorry.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)If you ask the independents and repubs in purple states, they see Hillary as solid liberal left. They are correct to view her that way.
In fact, if you look at the voting record she was almost identical to Obama and more liberal than Edwards:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/06/367618/-Why-Let-the-Facts-Get-In-Your-Way
Factually, Hillary's record is solid liberal as a standing Senator. You can pick an issue that you disagreed with, but overall she is by no means a "centrist".
Actually, most of my independent friends and neighbors seem to have a more objective view of Hillary and her record than many on DU. She appropriately represented NY (home to Wall Street), is a sharp politician, and has a lot of international viewpoints, but in general she supports progressive causes and voted that way.
If you represent a farm state, you should advocate for agriculture. If you are from Florida, you likely support tourism. If you represent Wall Street, it's hard to go on the attack against your own constituents specifically. Sorry, but that's the way it works.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)She is quite center right orthodox in her policies if you take any view but the bubble in D.C. and the Washington Consensus. She may be more moderate center right and therefore more left in purely relative terms but this does not make her far left.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)She is talking about a relative position within D.C. orthodoxy. When people call Hillary "far left" not only does it stretch the imagination and undo centuries of post-Enlightenment political philosophy/political science, it plays right into the hands of the right wing because in absolute terms she is center right. If Hillary is far left and therefore the absolute most left person we can have, you are admitting two things:
One, that the only policies suitable for the United States are right wing, e.g. Hillary as the Far left (really, center right) and maniacs like Ted Cruz are the far right.
and two, that the far left and right are not "reasonable" so we should probably elect a more reasonable moderate (read, in this skewed context, a straight up right winger) like Jeb Bush.
Not only does this play right into right wing narratives, it helps shift the political window of the United States further to the right. So no, I find your characterization of Hillary as far left both facile and harmful to political discourse. Is Hillary a communist or some flavor of socialist? No? Then she is not far left, end of story.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)First, the commentators said that Hillary was to the left of bill on crime, left of everyone on immigration, and adopted Warren's language on bank regulation. On women's rights she is a progressive advocate. Donna Brazile (who was on the radio show) gets it; and she said so. Bernie likes Hillary.
Second, her voting record is rated more liberal than most senators.
In the eyes of most independent voters, most commentaries, and most "ratings", she is solid liberal.
The ONLY people who think of Hillary as "centrist" are the far left, and that's a "relative" view. In my early days of the 50's (cold war, Korea), the MOST liberal politician was very conservative compared to today. In the 60's and 70's, we saw some really progressive thinking, but few winning candidates. We managed to influence the dialog though (women's rights, 18 year old vote, got us out of Vietnam), but also elected some crazy conservatives (Nixon, Reagan) who appeared less conservative than their economic and military policies turned out to be.
My point all along is simple; the vast majority of the world sees Hillary as pretty liberal on the vast majority of issues. The voters that are needed to WIN an election probably vote on issues and personality, not on "liberal to conservative" ratings. By all objective and subjective evidence, Hillary's current standing is pretty progressive.
She may not be as liberal as Bernie, or may be a little more liberal than Obama, but that has no effect on the "political window". In purple states, voters will come out and vote for "women's rights" or "immigration policy" or "less taxes" or "education". They don't vote on ratings by political science professors. I've seen lots of Presidential candidates who were not "rated" progressive, but who actually acted in a very liberal fashion (LBJ, Carter), while I've also seen Presidents everyone assumed would be very progressive who acted less like a liberal than we wished (Clinton, Obama). Predicting how liberal they will act is difficult, but we know one thing: if the Democrats loose the White House, "ratings" of how liberal they are don't matter!
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)As far as economic policies are concerned Nixon would actually tack more to the left than many Democrats, even if his motivations were to take the wind out of the left's sails usually.
You are also flat out wrong in a global sense, Hillary as a orthodox Dem would be seen as being more similar to center-right liberal parties, such as the UK's Liberal Democrats. Most of the world recognizes this political nuance and realizes that the orthodoxy in American politics is right wing in nature, and is largely a contest between a center-right and a far right wing party.
Here is your objective standard:
What is the most leftmost position possible in modern political philosophy? Communism.
What is the most right wing position possible in modern political philosophy? Propertarian (right wing libertarian)
Far left would be communism of some kind, far right would be ideologies similar to Rothbard or Hoppe. When you say Hillary is "far left" you are lumping her with socialists at the very least, which is flat out wrong. Perceptions of her being liberal do not make her far left, they are fundamentally correct. She is a center right liberal democratic and so will act like a liberal, going by the true use of the term and not the perverted over simplified use abused in the United States.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)BTW, I met Nixon at Gen. Mark Clark's retirement from the Citadel. We had just built a bomb shelter in our back yard during the cold war. My family had just moved to Charleston after 4 years on Army bases. So it's not just what you read in books, but the actual perceptions of people living during those times that are meaningful - just as would be true today. I think I have a view of perceptions of Nixon as VP and during his Presidency. The perception of Nixon as more "left" was not what many of us observed as his behavior. He was a politician who saw Kennedy's success and knew how to create perceptions for the purpose of getting elected. He was smart, and so are some of our current candidates.
I stand by my observations that sometimes predictions of the behavior of Presidents based on perception of their relative "liberalism" or "conservatism" doesn't always translate into their behavior when in office.
It's a waste of time, as I keep telling you, to debate the relative perception of "communism" of today vs. the view of "communism" of the 50's and early 60's. Time and place create moving targets, and you qualify your premise with "modern" as a descriptor.
The original OP and my comments are focused specifically on DUer's perception of Hillary as centrist. I have provided evidence that most observers and raters and commentaries see her as a solid liberal in comparison with other American politicians in today's relative positions as a presidential candidate. You can debate philosophy if you want, but that's not on the NPR agenda when talking about the practical perception of most voters. Logically, you aren't following the thread.
If you don't like the raters and shows that were indicated, then take it up with them since I'm just the messenger. Meanwhile, I'm sure we'll see Hillary settle on positions as the campaign goes on that philosophers can debate - for example we have a few college faculty who love to include the value of "social justice" into everything. Out of context, we could spend decades on the history, religion, philosophy, ethics, values, and morals of "social justice". Liberal arts faculty find that discussion fascinating. We could rate the Hillary and the other candidates by "social justice", but the only ones interested would be the researchers. Being labelled "centrist" is just as useless to me personally.
Voters will vote by issues, affiliation, or personalities, but rarely detailed study of ideology or philosophy.
As Bernie says, it's better to debate the issues than bash other candidates. Labeling Hillary as centrist may be an attempt at "bashing", but it's not consistent with most observer assessments in play today who label her "liberal". Also t's not relevant if she is labelled something or the other. We need a candidate who can win and we need to track the important issues.
I'll vote for the Democratic nominee.
Edit: Adding an FYI link just for fun... http://millercenter.org/president/nixon/essays/biography/8
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)A center right liberal democrat, which is not far left. This is why I take issue with your characterization of her as a far left candidate: it is both incorrect and imprecise.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Sancho
(9,205 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, it only measures bills that made it to the floor.
Second, voting against a "liberal" bill because it was not liberal enough earns you a "conservative" point.
But it tells the story you want to vomit forth.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)You've already demonstrated you're evaluating based on an utterly crappy metric. So I've already got reason to doubt any suggestions you give. Along the lines of "I have no sense of smell, but these guys make great Italian food!!"
cali
(114,904 posts)reporting them.
No, I'm not disputing the report. It's revealing.
You do know that the TPP was largely finished when she left office, right? And yeah, she can't release specific information as the tpp is classified under National Security auspices.
She made a vague mealy mouthed statement that is completely meaningless. And it's LATE to be weighing in on the TPP. The majority of dems in Congress have weighed in- against it; along with many other elected dems.
And how do you know where many independents and purple state voters stand on the issue?
She is a centrist. And these days being a centrist means being to the right more than being a true centrist. The entire equation has shifted to the right.
And cut the "do you want Jeb Bush in the WH" nonsense. Burn that strawman to the ground.
HRC should just have the guts to say she supports it- as she obviously does- and tell us why.
Political leadership? Nope. Political courage? Nope. Just cautious political maneuvering and obfuscating.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)I didn't agree or disagree with NPR (and I'll still try to find the link). I simply said I heard two reporters talking about Hillary and Obama agreeing they would not attack each other on some current topics including TPP. That's what I heard was their political strategy.
I don't know what was finished or not when Hillary left, but more importantly I don't know what Hillary wanted in the TPP that was not put in the TPP. Neither do you. I also don't know if Hillary has some MOU or is bound by some policy to not reveal what she knows is in the TPP. It would not surprise me. Hillary probable supports parts of the TPP and does not support other parts. Most likely that's true for Obama too, but they must weigh what they think the total value of a compromise is to the US. She has stated her policy about trade agreements.
There are numerous polls and ratings of politicians. Hillary's voting record and ratings are usually about the same as Obama's. I'm sure you can find those.
Jeb (and Rick Scott and GW Bush) "won" close elections in purple states despite polls saying they would loose and horrible performances in debates. The purple states will be bombarded with negative advertising that will paint Bernie (if he were the candidate) as a commie, pinko, "Jew" and then Jeb will look fine to the many, many uninformed voters in states like Florida. Sorry, I've been there on the front lines for decades.
Your opinion about "leadership" and "courage" are not what most current polls of women and immigrants and minorities reflect. They see her as a very courageous women in a male-dominated world. The questions is simply who will carry the middle 40-50% of American voters who are not committed to the GOP or Democratic party? Political maneuvering is smart. There is plenty of time for specific debate.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm at a loss as to what you think this NPR report proves or illustrates. If you're trying to say that Hillary is just being polite and diplomatic, that's absurd. She has parted way with the President on some issues and she has managed to do it without attacking him. And she will certainly continue to do so in the future during her campaign. She's not running for a third Obama term.
You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension. I've already informed you that she can't reveal any particulars about the TPP as it is CLASSIFIED. I don't expect her to and it's not necessary to do so to come out with a position on it.
I'm unsure what her ratings in relation to Obama's ratings have to do with this.
And this isn't about Bernie or his being a "Jew" though it is interesting how that is an issue you think is important.
Perhaps you make up your mind about candidates and issues based on polls. I do not. And Hillary hasn't led on marriage equality or immigration or the TPP or Keystone XL. That's just a fact- not something one needs a poll for.
She didn't come out for full marriage equality until after she announced. She "evolved" on the issue- until the majority of Americans were for it. She was against drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants and for sending undocumented immigrants back to their countries of origin until recently.
Political maneuvering is fine in its place, but consistently shirking from taking a position is not.
Sancho
(9,205 posts)Hillary purposefully won't specifically criticize current proposals put forth by Obama because she agreed not to plus it's not politically useful to winning independents. That's what I heard was reported.
She is willing to state general policies about trade agreements. Over the next year I'm sure she will narrow her focus and put forward more specifics. She has done so recently on SC nominations, immigration, etc.
She clearly has a liberal track record: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
In order to win, she must win voters in purple states with lots of electoral college votes - and her key to do so is clearly the votes of women, immigrants, and minorities. Frankly, TPP hardly resonates with those voters directly.
Here in Florida, I've already heard a repub call Bernie Sanders "another Bernie (Madoff)" who wants to take your money and allude to his being Jewish. In the South, it's an issue whether the rest of the world believes it or not. Sanders hasn't faced a national, well-funded attack yet. If he gains traction, you will see amazing lies and ads. Then you will see Bernie back off bold statements too - simply because they will be misused against him as soon as he says just about anything. Look at what happened to Jeb over an interview this week. Hillary is an experienced politician. She may have positions, but may not express them until she deems it's the right time and place. I don't see that as "shrinking". I don't see Hillary as scared to take a position. I see her running a planned campaign with advise, a budget, and targeted voters.
Obama also evolved on some issues. I don't doubt that Hillary (and Bill) also have backed off on NAFTA after they saw it did not work as planned. He even said so in an interview about a week ago. The DL issue is more difficult because it's confused with state's rights, homeland security, etc. Obama was also reluctant to use executive privilege and similar tools because it may open the door for more stupid SC rulings. I think that her position to simply provide a path to citizenship is clearly the best solution and most progressive position of most candidates for President. That would automatically resolve minor state controlled problems.
cali
(114,904 posts)And OK, you have bigot acquaintances. But using Bernie being Jewish as making him a loser is just as offensive as using Hillary being a woman or Obama being black. It's disgusting and you are wallowing in it.
And no, you won't see Bernie backing off bold statements. I know him. He's represented me for 25 years. For good or for ill, he's been saying the same things for almost 40 years, since he first ran for Mayor of Burlington.
And guess what? Bernie is also a very experienced politician and has run over a dozen campaigns- a couple against some very well funded opponents. As for Bernie's political skills, watch the CNN interview with him that took place this morning.
As for the tpp, it's becoming a very big issue in this campaign.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)involved.
Right now only members of Congress and Senate have access to the 'unsigned' working draft. No Aides, no Lobbyists.
I don't think Mrs. Clinton is an isolationist, and I believe she feels increased global trade is a positive for Americas economy.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I swear, for the money they steal from us, you would think corporate politicians would be able to afford better talking points.
Absolutely absurd, veiled suggestions that Hillary doesn't know what's in it or wasn't involved in NEGOTIATING it....followed by the predictable slimy suggestion that anyone who doesn't back this predatory sack of shit is an "isolationist."
What sad and pathetic talking points. And what a low and disreputable occupation, distributing such obviously dishonest talking points for corporate predators.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)And it's rude to make such accusations, particularly since there's nothing Democratic, liberal, idealistic or commendable about xenophobia and isolationism.
And for the record I agree 100% with Sunlei.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)2+2=5 worked for Orwell, but that was fiction. In reality, you don't have a memory hole, and you can't disguise the obviously absurd.
You will protest, but people with eyes and ears will nevertheless stand up and reiterate that 2+2=4.
Carry on, but realize that honest people see brazenly absurd corporate talking points for *exactly* what they are.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)I'm on pins and needles. 
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)planet?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)See, this is how you tell propaganda from honest discussion. You slide so easily from one transparent rhetorical tactic to the next.
First, you attempt a smearing insinuation that anyone who doesn't support this predatory "trade" agreement (which you already know is less about trade than about increasing the power of corporations over democratic governments) is....gasp...."ISOLATIONIST."
Called out on that, you divert to a similarly dishonest argument: that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE RIGHT NOW!!!111!!!!! That anyone who opposes this clearly predatory sack of shit has a responsibility to lay out a comprehensive agenda for global trade RIGHT NOW!!!!111!!1
Just breathtakingly absurd. There is no justification or urgency for this nonsense. It is being pushed by corporate politicians, because their greedy corporate owners want it.
Here was a nice, simple OP, the responses to which underscore the absurd dishonesty of your gambit here. No, this nonsense shouldn't be on the agenda. We are in national crisis with a middle class looted into poverty, and THIS next step in looting is what our corporate politicians consider top of the agenda. That, and pouring our tax dollars into insulting propaganda campaigns online to shill for it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026676256
I couldn't live with myself, distributing talking points for corrupt politicians who are looting this nation and dismantling democracy itself. No amount of money would be worth that sacrifice of my conscience.
You have a nice day.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)to Corporations to protect 'the people' from them. Todays Republicans support corporations only. Though there are a few who sign-on bills I support, but they don't attract party attention.
Number23
(24,544 posts)opinion (and of course they are way too principled and just couldn't sleep at night blanketing a message board that 80% of Americans have never heard of with their thoughts as if s/he doesn't do that every single day around here) shows that you are probably a pretty decent as well as patient person.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)However, a jury disagreed 3-4 so it stands. Sigh.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)are "isolationists," or absurdly dishonest suggestions that Hillary, who participated in negotiating and authoring the TPP, doesn't know what's in it better than most politicians.
Absurd or dishonest Third Way talking points should be called out for the manipulation they are, particularly when they are used repeatedly. We are flooded with Orwellian nonsense masquerading as serious political discussion on our teevees and airwaves, and now on our political discussion boards, too. How absurd to suggest that it's "rude" to point out obvious sophistry when we see it.
DU deserves better than this type of fake argument. This nation deserves better.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We already have free trade agreements with the countries that make up 80% of the "GDP" within the TPP.
Japan makes up another 12%, but their tariff on US goods is a whopping 1.2%. If you think 1.2% destroys trade, you must think the US economy is being annihilated by sales taxes that are many times that.
So why do we need another agreement to open their markets? These markets are already open.
It's almost like the people behind the TPP aren't being truthful about the need for this agreement...
It must be tough. Since money rules politics, candidates are afraid that what they say might turn off a future funder of his/her candidacy.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)not the left and not Bernie people.
She will do what is best for all of us and do it when it is the right time.
Some just can't stand a strong woman who won't let herself be pushed around. Get use to it!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I actually appreciate posts like this.
For too long, corporatists pretended shamelessly that they *weren't* on the right. Pretended that they *didn't* have contempt for liberals.
Even lied and pretended that they shared the same liberal values and principles as traditional Democrats....pretended that they shared the same general policy goals, but just advocated a slower and more pragmatic route to them.
Good to see the mask come off and the dripping contempt exposed.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to those that obviously many in the party leadership don't care about these days, other than being a mechanism they have to manipulate as long as they are kept from taking away our voting process that gives us some semblance of what was created by our founders wanting a true democracy, that has been corrupted heavily over the years, with the JUDICIAL ACTIVIST notions by our current supreme court that corporations are people and money is speech. Third wayers won't admit it, but they just love this REPUBLICAN (aka corporatist) side of the court that enables them to keep buying power within the Democratic Party.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The rest of the world thinks Hillary is a liberal.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and do NOT support her on this!
If you think expanding H-1B visa quotas is a "liberal" stance, please explain why it is so!
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is liberal to want more immigrants or make it easier for immigrants.
If she thinks it is good for the economy, that's not a particularly liberal/conservative thing.
The only people riled up against H-1Bs are out of work IT people. The job field contained many H1Bs in the 90s and when it naturally contracted after Y2K, people couldn't find jobs and blamed the H-1Bs because they were there.
A very small issue, not enough to make her not a liberal to most of the rest of the world.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)H-1B visa program not only hurts American workers who it displaces and lowers salaries for with these artificially low salaries of jobs they have to compete with, but it hurts foreign workers too with many of the abuses they have to endure to be a part of this program to work here rather than follow more traditional means like green cards or even an actual IMMIGRATION process to become a citizen here if that is their goal (and which is the traditional view of our founders and liberals of what this country is about. People moving here to become CITIZENS, not slave like "guest workers" .
People who become citizens can:
1) demand higher salaries or move to another job that will offer them such. H-1B doesn't allow for this!
2) provide incentive to have them move here along with their families. Many who are in H-1B visa program have their family back in the other country where cost of living might be an order of magnitude lower than ours here, and couldn't afford to have them move here. This hurts them as families.
3) Item 2 also has money they earn being mostly shipped out of the country to other countries which stimulates THEIR economies rather than ours in spending activity. If American workers had those jobs here, the money would be spent here and stimulate OUR economy instead.
4) Ultimately the investment in foreign TEMPORARY workers through H-1B helps train work forces that move back to their native country and helps build cities like Bangalore, India to be the high tech capital of the world rather than Silicon Valley, since we've helped in effect to train their work force!
5) More H-1B workers means less American voters who are working at these companies, and less of these workers that a part of Unions to fight for better working conditions here. All part of the 1% plan that you or Hillary don't seem to have a problem with.
6) H-1B workers employed through "body shops" are abused in places they live here ("guest houses" . I've seen this practice myself when H-1B workers were stacked in a small apartment across the hall from where I lived right before I left the bay area.
Don't believe that foreign workers aren't abused with this too? Well, watch this interview to see the point of view from one of those H-1B visa workers on how he feels like this program is screwing him too.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html
And it isn't just tech workers that get screwed by guest worker programs like H-1B. H-2B is also a bad program that is a similar "guest worker" program used to hire more "indentured servant" workers to do things like work on rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, instead of spending that money on AMERICAN workers down there who needed jobs to do this sort of work.
And look at how this program and how it was abused actually wound up in court for the even worse abuses that it was putting in place.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/198665/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison
Here's a certain liberal candidate for 2016 who understands this and who speaks out for us, unlike Hillary Clinton! He notes here that both H-1B and H-2 worker visa programs have been abused, and that we need other solutions than these to work for the middle class here, and ones that don't abuse the working class of all countries as a whole.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2916827/it-outsourcing/bernie-sanders-h-1b-skeptic.html
I saw the ABUSES that I describe here start in the 90's that you describe as not being a problem then, that started things like layoffs at many Silicon Valley companies that hadn't done ANY layoffs before then. I saw personally a "guest house" being described in that NBC story back in those days right in the apartment next to me when a whole large group of H-1B workers were stacked in that apartment when my neighbor moved out when the apartment rent was raised (which had me leaving not long after that before my lease was up). Apparently the person who "owned" these H-1B workers decided at one point to kick them all out to find someplace else so that he could have the place to himself. I also saw managers joking how they could hire H-1B workers from a body shop cheap since they hired a "service" from them rather than specific contract workers from them as a way around paying them equivalent salaries.
These problems have been happening for a long time now.
The economy didn't "naturally contract", but it had collapsed after the laddering scams of many of the investment industry had fostered at the end of the 90's as part of the dotcom *BUBBLE* had engineered them exploded then and the people like employees with stock options that they'd exercised earlier were left having to pay for AMT taxes unless they sold their stock because they were paying income taxes on unemployment for the same year. I had that happen to me once.
Not a small issue! If high tech is the economy instead of manufacturing that some claim should be built here to replace the manufacturing jobs that were decimated by NAFTA, then it is part of the economy that needs to be built with decent paying jobs for American workers and not screwed again like manufacturing workers were earlier and people left with just abused temporary contract jobs like is the case for so many tech workers now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But too niche an issue with which to hang the label conservative on Hillary.
The idea behind that law is to fill in managerial/professional capacity jobs temporarily, so long as they get the same wages and conditions as other employees. It is specifically written to protect/cause the employer to prefer American workers. The number is limited. If Hillary thinks there need to be more of them, then she thinks they will expand the economy by taking jobs that cannot otherwise be filled.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If it was followed the way this propaganda states, then the number of jobs needed in this capacity would be very small.
It's stated purpose, which I could support, is to help hire professionals with skill set combinations (such as a foreign language and certain kinds of technical skills that American workers might not have). Business needs for these kind of workers happen, and I can see that. Now in some cases this work can be done offshore, or perhaps if they really wanted this we could find means to help expedite the green card process or even paths to citizenship which these days have been really delayed so that some wanting to become citizens have had to wait TEN YEARS or so to get citizenship. We should be fixing those processes instead of throwing out or hugely expanding H-1B quotas that serve nothing but helping them get *cheap* labor instead of American workers that is the real goal of these programs. Data shows that it is used for paying lower salaries...
She'd be in the center-right party in any Western European country. So no, the rest of the world does not think Clinton is a liberal.
cali
(114,904 posts)from the left, but Saint Hillary of Wall Street will stand strong for "all of us".
that was frickin' marvelous.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm the left. What the fuck are you?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I can see it on bumper stickers already.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)her one of two armed camps and thus begin flinging fun-filled uninformed rhetorical projectiles at each other!
Unpack the Witches Pole, tie her to it.....and burn her......starting from the extreme left.
Hope the RW fascists are not watching and taking great delight.
(Rhetorically speaking, of course)
cali
(114,904 posts)and your hysterical hyperbole combined with your lack of knowledge is really a pretty unattractive thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to do so has not yet come. For me, if she supports it who the fuck cares when she says so. If she takes a stand against it, however, that would be very powerful and should be done when the full deal is present and she can speak in detail without any legal or ethical concerns stemming from her role in the Obama administration. Those are my views, not those of non Union DU rich folks who exploit labor issues as devices of partisan political agendas.
Once the moment arrives, Labor will do what has to be done. But labor people also have informed views of the various players and are aware that Clinton has come down on both sides of trade agreements in the past. People on DU who say 'she's for it, she's always for free trade' are not factually correct. They just aren't. And for those of us who are actually interested in trade agreements, the facts are useful tools of advocacy.
I take my cues from organized labor, LGBT groups (big opposition to TPP from gay labor groups, huge and it has been ongoing for many months) and that's just how it is. DUers who are opposed to Hillary just don't have my trust at all, many of them are in favor of anti gay and anti choice characters like the Pope, so their opinions are less than moot to me, they are tainted by bigotry. Sorry. Folks who endorse those who denigrate my family do not retain my trust.
AFL-CIO has my trust.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Normally I ignore it, because the poster generally isn't referring to me.
This:
Is too much. I am a bisexual atheist who does not care for this hypocritical bigoted pope and am fully committed to lgbtqia equality. I also am poor and non-union, but not by choice. I don't like Clinton precisely because of her actions on labor policy in the past. I know you qualified it by saying "many of them", but this is insulting to any one of us who does oppose her policies (along with many of the labor and equality groups you claim to listen to, by the way).
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)with some bullshit accusation of being "in favor of anti-gay and anti-choice characters." That's the most disingenuous and underhanded slur I've seen leveled at liberals.
Have some fucking shame.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)than I do. I'm sure she has heard many opinions on the current state of it, but doesn't have access to it. Right now, there is no pressing need for her to comment on the TPP, so she is not doing so. She's not commenting on many other things, either. It is very early in the primary campaign. She's following her campaign strategy, which does not include major policy statements at this time.
As the campaign progresses, she will remark on every important issue. She will do it, though, on her schedule, not in response to pressure from anyone.
Is that a wise decision? I don't know. Her remarks on the Citizens United issue have been pretty clear. In response, her opponents have said what they will say many times: "She doesn't really mean it." We can expect similar comments on anything she says that appears to agree with positions held by some.
In the end, primary voters will decide if she is the candidate. And there it is. She's running her own campaign according to whatever plans she has. I doubt she will alter it much on demand.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Come on! That line is a lot of BS! If she were sent to talk to other countries about TPP as Secretary of State, she HAS to know more than the average person on the street about it. Either this notion is a lie, or Obama is stupid for not empowering her with the knowledge she needed to work with other countries on this agreement!
Sorry, I'm just not buying it! And nor do many here that keep feeling like we've been screwed by "free trade" deals for the last few decades.
Ross Perot is still right about us looking at more "sucking sounds"! And he as a corporate leader also knows a lot more about what was in these treaties than the average Joe does too.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)under which they serve. If they do not do that, they do not continue in that position.
The TPP is a multinational agreement. It is not merely a production of the United States. The whole thing is far more complex than most people realize. Personally, I've formed no concrete opinion of it, due to insufficient information. I know that President Obama supports it, and I've listened to his stated reasons for doing so. I assume he's well-briefed on what's in it. I'm not.
Neither is anyone pontificating about it on DU. You're not going to see me commenting on the details of it, because I don't know them. I'm withholding judgment until people I trust who actually know the contents of the TPP weigh in. Right now, it's a political football. I don't deal with such things much.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Do you think that is a good "democratic" way of running society, or a disguised way of putting in place dictatorial powers!
Personally I think we're moving towards the latter with things like the TPP being talked about in secret primarily with corporate leaders who have helped write this POS and have been able to do so in secret until the leaks from Wikileaks and others that have shown what the real agenda with things like FSDS being in it. Those who support it want to pretend that these leaks haven't happened, as in an ideal world we'd all not know about this CRAP until it was too late and Fast Track that enables TPP to be passed without a filibuster happens all that has people like the Koch brothers and their Joseph Stalin-created empire smiling at their servant's stupidity in putting in place their path to fascism that is happening now.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)So, no, I don't vote in such things.
I vote for candidates. I don't have a vote on policies. So far, my candidates have done an excellent job, overall.
Maybe you vote for individual issues, but I'm not in any position to do that. I do communicate with people I've helped to elect, though.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)When she had complete access to it. In fact, she was the legal authority for classifying the TPP - classification authority is delegated from the President to the SoS, Secretary of Defense and DNI. Legally, they are the ones who decide what is classified and what is not.
So no, she had a bit more access to it than we do. In fact, she would be the one giving the "marching orders" for our negotiators from 2009 to 2013. And reportedly most of the negotiations were very close to complete by 2013.
Yep, right after her remarks have zero effect on passing the bill, and when she can claim to be for or against it with no repercussions towards its actual passage.
If polling says it's unpopular, she can stand up and say she would have done it differently without having to actually do it differently. It's a perfect third-way statement of utter worthlessness. Almost as good as "Mistakes were made".
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)most people who don't like her wouldn't believe her anyhow. So, there's nothing to gain, frankly.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)She may not vote as a congress critter in the House or the Senate, but she has the bully pulpit as the potential president in 2016 who would be "empowered" or "disempowered" by this agreement if she were to get voted in in 2016, depending on what her agenda is as president.
If she is clear now that her agenda is to work for the American people and helps work to stop this mess as a way of showing that she wants to back up her words with actions, THAT is what could win her over with the "left" of the party...
The same "left" in this country that voted as a MAJORITY of voters to increase the minimum wage last election in RED states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, etc. at the same time they voted against Democrats that they felt they couldn't trust for being as ambiguous as Clinton is now!
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I suspect that Hillary Clinton doubts that as well. She's not speaking about this right now. In reality, by the time 2016 elections come around, the issue may well have been resolved. She's not a party to any of it, since she holds no office or position in government at the present time. She will play no role in the decisions that will be made. I suspect you won't hear much from her on the issue until later. That's her choice to make, for better or worse.
Clinton opponents are not likely to accept much of anything she says. That's what I think.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I'm just stating that now she has an opportunity to show that she can be trusted with her words so that she's not just "talking the talk", but "walking the walk" as well, if she really wants to EARN our support which a democratic government demands happen for those who are supposed to work for US in government, not just work for the rich to have us all slaves to them!
Many corporate Democrats, or those who are being tugged on by their corporate donors to pass TPP now, may feel like they don't have to, if the person that could be elected as president comes out against it. And if she were to come out against it, then I think there would be a lot of us that might start to support her instead of feeling like she's abandoned our trust like so many DLC/Third Way pols have done over the past few decades that has TURNED US OFF to their agenda.
She is a party to the TPP in that she helped negotiate it, and if she wants our votes to be president, she will be the one that leads our country with this POS legislation in place then that affects all of us.
Whether she can vote or not in congress is NOT the issue! Whether she expresses leadership to help stop this in congress IS the issue!
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I'm simply laying out some facts. You want her to do something? Tell her so. I'm caucusing for Sanders.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)since the beginning, and according to some1 here on DU, it's just lip service, and she won't do a damned thing to undo it. Ignoring the fact that the CU case started over a hate-filled anti-Hillary movie.
Quite a few of those who oppose her here will not believe anything about Hillary. Even if you put the facts in front of them, they ignore it and continue with their smears.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)They're not listening. They don't hear. They don't believe her. So, there's no real point.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Those donors mostly being in the 1% that have helped fund the process to get the SCOTUS justices that put in place Citizen's United to give more power to those candidates with lots of corporate cash to spend over those candidates that don't want to just follow what corporations want like Bernie Sanders is.
She may claim to be against Citizen's United, but without it, she'd have less of an advantage over Bernie Sanders in terms of funding of her campaign, and perhaps getting elected, than she does now with it in place.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)It has to do with corporate political advertising. Two different beasts all together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Also, you just proved my point.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)which the same set of justices just decided which IS about taking away controls on direct contributions to campaigns!
If you don't believe that these decisions are all tied together, you are being used, or are a part of the system that is being pushed on us!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)No matter what Hillary says, those opposed will never believe her. Confirmation bias.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If she really is a woman of her words and wants to shut these sort of things down!
I guess they figure even though someone like Obama vetoes Keystone Oil pipeline to help the base feel like he's doing something for them, he knows that if he helps put in TPP in place, that what he did with Keystone Oil pipeline won't matter, as they will be able to sue through TPP all of what they will have claim to have lost from Keystone Oil being stopped and force many of us to pick up the tab for their engineered CORPORATE WELFARE that they've been receiving so much of recently.
That's probably why Hillary has avoided comments on TPP, as she knows that is her corporate donors' ace in the hole to overcome any other issues she may take a side against them on, if those issues can be overturned by something like TPP later on anyway.
Still waiting for her to show she's working for us on TPP... NOT holding my breath though!
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Hillary pulled in more from private, individual donors than she did corporate PACs. Quite a bit more, actually.
But hey, it's smear the only Dem with a chance season because IDEOLOGICAL PURITY!!!!111one
treestar
(82,383 posts)And why should she give them something they are waiting to pounce on to use against her? Doesn't matter what she says. If she is for it, they'll use that. If she's not sure, they'll use that. If she is against it, it won't be for the right reasons or good enough.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)It's a political football, but not an issue where she has any influence, really. By election time next year, the issue will have been resolved by the current administration and Congress. Clinton's not really on the field of play.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And will not work well in 2016.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)IMHO.
The left needs to choose between a democratic president or a f***ing republican president!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6592890
JEB
(4,748 posts)either pro, mini-pro or con on these trade agreements. It's almost as if she doesn't want the voters to have a clear idea of her position.
Warpy
(114,616 posts)It couldn't possibly be mainstream Democrats asking what the hell her position is, could it? It couldn't be just ordinary rank and file Democrats plus a lot of mainstream members of Congress who are leery of voting for something they've never been allowed to read, could it?
No, it's the MEAN OLD LEFT, picking on poor little Hillary again.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, give it a rest.