HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » HRC restates her opinion ...

Sun May 24, 2015, 01:43 PM

 

HRC restates her opinion on TPP

Same as she has been saying all along. It is the second question in the video. I know it's not the kneejerk response some would prefer. But it is the kind of thoughtful response I want in a leader.

https://m.&t=172

182 replies, 13766 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 182 replies Author Time Post
Reply HRC restates her opinion on TPP (Original post)
MaggieD May 2015 OP
eloydude May 2015 #1
MaggieD May 2015 #2
Motown_Johnny May 2015 #34
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #116
Scootaloo May 2015 #43
MaggieD May 2015 #66
Scootaloo May 2015 #69
MaggieD May 2015 #72
Scootaloo May 2015 #75
karynnj May 2015 #84
MaggieD May 2015 #85
treestar May 2015 #90
Recursion May 2015 #182
Art_from_Ark May 2015 #158
treestar May 2015 #88
MaggieD May 2015 #95
GummyBearz May 2015 #3
MaggieD May 2015 #4
GummyBearz May 2015 #7
MaggieD May 2015 #16
GummyBearz May 2015 #20
MaggieD May 2015 #24
GummyBearz May 2015 #27
MaggieD May 2015 #64
GummyBearz May 2015 #71
MaggieD May 2015 #73
GummyBearz May 2015 #91
MaggieD May 2015 #93
GummyBearz May 2015 #94
MaggieD May 2015 #96
GummyBearz May 2015 #97
MaggieD May 2015 #98
GummyBearz May 2015 #99
MaggieD May 2015 #102
GummyBearz May 2015 #103
LanternWaste May 2015 #173
Exilednight May 2015 #104
MaggieD May 2015 #159
Exilednight May 2015 #160
MaggieD May 2015 #161
Exilednight May 2015 #162
MaggieD May 2015 #163
MaggieD May 2015 #165
Exilednight May 2015 #168
MaggieD May 2015 #170
Exilednight May 2015 #175
MaggieD May 2015 #176
Exilednight May 2015 #181
Autumn May 2015 #126
BeanMusical May 2015 #131
davidpdx May 2015 #134
MaggieD May 2015 #164
yallerdawg May 2015 #37
madville May 2015 #5
MaggieD May 2015 #9
Rilgin May 2015 #101
arcane1 May 2015 #79
Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #130
cantbeserious May 2015 #6
MaggieD May 2015 #10
cantbeserious May 2015 #15
MaggieD May 2015 #25
cantbeserious May 2015 #30
sendero May 2015 #8
MaggieD May 2015 #11
sendero May 2015 #13
MaggieD May 2015 #26
DemocratSinceBirth May 2015 #17
hrmjustin May 2015 #12
yallerdawg May 2015 #14
cantbeserious May 2015 #18
MaggieD May 2015 #22
cantbeserious May 2015 #28
MaggieD May 2015 #45
cantbeserious May 2015 #47
karynnj May 2015 #92
yallerdawg May 2015 #23
cantbeserious May 2015 #29
yallerdawg May 2015 #38
cantbeserious May 2015 #40
MaggieD May 2015 #42
cantbeserious May 2015 #44
MaggieD May 2015 #46
cantbeserious May 2015 #48
MaggieD May 2015 #53
cantbeserious May 2015 #54
MaggieD May 2015 #59
cantbeserious May 2015 #60
MaggieD May 2015 #62
Agschmid May 2015 #68
MaggieD May 2015 #70
TheKentuckian May 2015 #153
MaggieD May 2015 #154
yallerdawg May 2015 #49
cantbeserious May 2015 #52
MaggieD May 2015 #55
cantbeserious May 2015 #57
MaggieD May 2015 #61
cascadiance May 2015 #107
yallerdawg May 2015 #111
cascadiance May 2015 #112
yallerdawg May 2015 #114
cascadiance May 2015 #118
yallerdawg May 2015 #119
TheKentuckian May 2015 #129
yallerdawg May 2015 #56
cantbeserious May 2015 #58
MaggieD May 2015 #63
yallerdawg May 2015 #67
Mojorabbit May 2015 #83
yallerdawg May 2015 #113
karynnj May 2015 #87
Exilednight May 2015 #128
davidpdx May 2015 #136
MaggieD May 2015 #19
yallerdawg May 2015 #21
Scootaloo May 2015 #50
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #31
MaggieD May 2015 #33
MannyGoldstein May 2015 #39
MaggieD May 2015 #41
Thinkingabout May 2015 #32
MaggieD May 2015 #35
Thinkingabout May 2015 #36
L0oniX May 2015 #51
AtomicKitten May 2015 #100
yallerdawg May 2015 #105
Exilednight May 2015 #143
yallerdawg May 2015 #144
Exilednight May 2015 #145
yallerdawg May 2015 #146
Exilednight May 2015 #147
yallerdawg May 2015 #150
Exilednight May 2015 #151
840high May 2015 #127
JEB May 2015 #65
yallerdawg May 2015 #76
JEB May 2015 #78
hobbit709 May 2015 #74
MaggieD May 2015 #77
JEB May 2015 #80
Doctor_J May 2015 #81
Doctor_J May 2015 #81
treestar May 2015 #86
lovemydog May 2015 #89
orpupilofnature57 May 2015 #106
Thinkingabout May 2015 #109
Katashi_itto May 2015 #108
Ichingcarpenter May 2015 #110
yallerdawg May 2015 #117
TBF May 2015 #139
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #115
yallerdawg May 2015 #120
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #121
yallerdawg May 2015 #122
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #123
yallerdawg May 2015 #124
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #125
MaggieD May 2015 #141
TBF May 2015 #149
MaggieD May 2015 #157
TBF May 2015 #167
MaggieD May 2015 #169
TBF May 2015 #171
MaggieD May 2015 #172
TBF May 2015 #174
MaggieD May 2015 #177
TBF May 2015 #178
MaggieD May 2015 #179
Warren DeMontague May 2015 #155
MaggieD May 2015 #156
TBF May 2015 #132
CharlotteVale May 2015 #137
Marr May 2015 #140
MaggieD May 2015 #142
TBF May 2015 #148
Jim Lane May 2015 #133
CharlotteVale May 2015 #135
Scuba May 2015 #138
DonCoquixote May 2015 #152
marmar May 2015 #166
CentralMass May 2015 #180

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 01:47 PM

1. "restates her opinion:"

 

In other words

TRIANGULATION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eloydude (Reply #1)

Sun May 24, 2015, 01:48 PM

2. I dont see any triangulation here

 

Can you be specific?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:43 PM

34. ...expectations....don't have details....have concerns....

 

So no matter which way things go she can refer back to that statement as an "I told you so".

Lets put it this way, what base did she not cover?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #2)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:07 PM

116. Yes because triangulation would require having an actual position.

"Can you be specific"- excellent question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eloydude (Reply #1)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:56 PM

43. No, no, not triangulation

 

Political triangulation is where you try to present you positions as being beteen - and superior to - either right or left posiitions on the same issue.

What Clinton is doing here is "hedging," which is a debate tactic where you non-answer with lots of qualifiers so that you cna be considered "correct" no matter what - or at least not incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #43)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:18 PM

66. Most democrats would be in favor of the TPP if....

 

It included enforceable regs on currency manipulation. That would solve a lot of trade problems. Not all, but a lot. So her concerns are very valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #66)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:22 PM

69. Really? Seeing as the overwhelming majority of hte party is in heels-in opposition to the TPP...

 

I think it might be due to a little more than "just one thing."

But hey, they're just irrational purist idiots, right? They ought to sell out, be pragmatic, join the republicans, and "win" right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #69)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:27 PM

72. It's a big thing

 

And a make or break issue for many democrats. Including HRC, I would bet (based on reading her book). It would pass easily if strong currency manipulation regs were included. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #72)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:38 PM

75. Yes, it's a big thing. One of no doubt many big things

 

This does not change the fact that, by the logic you have shown me, they should seek to "win" by giving up that principle.

Sacrifices to be more pragmatic. Else they'll be purists and lose!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #72)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:08 PM

84. that is the concern of Schumer and others, but

Adding just that will not move people who are against it for other reasons.

I say this as someone who thinks it could be possible to write a trade agreement that is better than not having one at all. If a trade agreement could improve labor conditions everywhere and environmental concerns, it could be a positive.

Remember that there already is trade and it is legal. That will continue with or without a treaty. Look at the labels of clothes you buy. Almost everything is made overseas and that has been the case for decades.

What concerns me about the treaty is that people from Paul Krug man to Elizabeth Warren have problems with some of the provisions they have seen. However the treaty is not yet finalized. What is being asked is that it be voted on without amendments. This is a process that has been used for decades. When negotiating with 12 countries, having amendments may make it impossible to get any deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #84)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:13 PM

85. Good post

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #69)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:19 PM

90. not one thing

the posters who make a big deal of it starting out deciding they would not like it. They've come up with several things they thought they could use to attack it.

They are just waiting for more. There's no attempt to be objective. Someone just thought this would be a good thing to use to divide Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #69)

Thu May 28, 2015, 06:56 AM

182. No, a majority of Democrats favor the TPP, and a majority of Republicans oppose it

Keystone XL was the a lot like that on the Democratic side: a majority of the party supported it but you could never tell that from netroots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #66)

Tue May 26, 2015, 12:35 AM

158. The average person doesn't give a crap about currency manipulation

And countries engage in currency manipulation because of shit like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017267303

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #43)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:18 PM

88. The agreement isn't out yet

So she is not rabidly against it, which makes no sense. She's not rabidly for it as it is not out yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #88)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:42 PM

95. And I appreciate that about her

 

I don't think you can be a successful president without that quality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:04 PM

3. In otherwords

 

She was for it before she was "concerned" about it. At least she didn't say "I voted against it before I voted for it"... but her current stance still doesn't strike me as good leadership. We will have to wait until she is told by the pollsters which side of the fence to get on it, then she will lead the charge for (or against) whatever gives her the best shot of getting in her dream home. Once in the WH however, all bets are off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #3)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:07 PM

4. No this is exactly what....

 

She wrote in her last book. Published a year ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:16 PM

7. Thats when she called the TPP "the gold standard in trade agreements"

 

Right? That is what she wrote in "Hard Choices"... so the "gold standard in trade agreements" is actually another word for "concern"? LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #7)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:22 PM

16. She said it could be

 

Did you read the book?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #16)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:26 PM

20. I read the part that concerns this discussion

 

Per NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."

Sure as hell doesn't sound like she was "concerned" about it in Hard Choices now does it? Keep up the disinformation though.. war is peace, etc etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #20)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:28 PM

24. That's an edited version

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #24)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:31 PM

27. Is NPR part of the right wing troll terrorist army out to sink her too now?

 

Please give me her unedited version of Hard Choices, in which she states she has "concern" over the TPP, as you claim this was her position in the book. So far all you have come up with as a retort is "nu-uh!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #27)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:14 PM

64. Buy it

 

You'll enjoy. She's smart and thoughtful on a wide range of issues. Her first book was similar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #64)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:25 PM

71. I'll take that to mean you can't pull a single quote from it...

 

...that contains the word "concerned" with regards to the TPP. Carry on, fiction can be entertaining

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #71)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:29 PM

73. Will I pull down the book off my bookshelf and type it here for you?

 

No, sorry. I can recognize a person who isn't overly interested in facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #73)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:20 PM

91. I'm all ears. If you don't want to make a case for your candidate, that is your choice

 

I certainly wouldn't want to tax you too much by asking for a quote... standing up and walking to a book shelf must be a real back breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #91)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:31 PM

93. LOL! No you're not

 

If you were you'd find out for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #93)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:41 PM

94. Do you work for her publisher or something?

 

Whats your obsession with me buying the book? Besides the fact that me not owning it is an easy excuse for you to dismiss all the all the quotes I've pulled from NPR and other sources... I'd rather spend the $15 on something to bbq this weekend. No quote, no credit... move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #94)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:45 PM

96. I'm just trying to be nice

 

And saying you don't know because you don't want to know. Not because you don't have the ability to know. Get it from the library. You don't have to buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #96)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:46 PM

97. I'd rather give you the chance to put as much spin on any quote in that book you possibly can

 

No quote, no credit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #97)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:51 PM

98. It doesn't bother me...

 

.... that you don't agree with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #98)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:52 PM

99. Its hard to agree or disagree with non-existance of quotes

 

No quote, no credit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #99)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:03 PM

102. It exists

 

Check your public library.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #102)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:09 PM

103. No quote, no credit

 

We aren't in a public library, we are online. I've checked online. Your turn... no quote, no credit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #94)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:20 PM

173. I too, assiduously avoid primary sources to better validate my biases.

 

I too, assiduously avoid primary sources to better validate my biases and predicate all my presumptions on second-hand reviews.

(distinction without a difference in three... two... one)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #64)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:12 PM

104. I own it, I've read it and that is not much of an edited version. It's a VERY ACCURATE

Representation of her views. No where in the book did she use the word "concerned."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #104)

Tue May 26, 2015, 12:43 AM

159. Re read pages 76-80

 

She is very explicit about what the U.S. interests are in the TPP. And she discusses challenges with China and the Asian market countries extensively throughout the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #159)

Tue May 26, 2015, 05:05 AM

160. And where does she say she is concerned enough to take a wait and see the final draft?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #160)

Tue May 26, 2015, 10:06 AM

161. On pages 76-80

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #161)

Tue May 26, 2015, 10:30 AM

162. That's not what it says, unless you can provide me with a quote so I may

Find exactly what you are referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #162)

Tue May 26, 2015, 10:36 AM

163. Here

 

"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish “a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement” that “is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.” It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then- Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect— no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be— but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #162)

Tue May 26, 2015, 11:04 AM

165. Where did you go?

 

Crickets?

I think maybe you didn't really read the book. Am I right? LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #165)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:10 PM

168. Work, but I'll be back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #168)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:14 PM

170. Nah - you were posting in other threads

 

Why not just admit the book says what you claimed it didn't say right on the pages I told you it said it?

How hard is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #170)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:22 PM

175. I posted in one other thread, and it has the exact same time stamp as the one above. Nice try, but I

Will rebut when I get home.

I wanted you to post the passage so I can prove a point. Nothing like having you do the work for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #175)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:24 PM

176. So far you have proved nothing....

 

Except that you obviously didn't actually read the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #170)

Thu May 28, 2015, 06:15 AM

181. The fact that you stalked me is kind of creepy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #24)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:08 PM

126. Strange. That's just what it says in my copy. Is someone changing Hillary's book?

How many versions of her book are out there? Will a new version come out every time she changes her opinion to suit the issue that will sound the best?. Really Mags you are failing at this. You are not the only person who has bought and read her book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #126)

Sun May 24, 2015, 09:49 PM

131. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #126)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:11 PM

134. LOL@ Autumn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #126)

Tue May 26, 2015, 10:44 AM

164. Here

 

Admit you didn't actually read it. LOL!

"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish “a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement” that “is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.” It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then- Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect— no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be— but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GummyBearz (Reply #20)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:48 PM

37. Disinformation?

What you just posted here are her praising the goals of TPP.

Her concerns are if these goals are not achieved.

"Ignorance is strength."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:14 PM

5. So is she for it or against it?

Or is she both for it and against it at the same? Or maybe neither for it or against it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #5)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:19 PM

9. Sounds like she will be against it...

 

If it does not change materially from it's current form. Her reasons mirror my own. Lack of enforceability. No currency manipulation regs, problems with IDIS. I like when politicians presume I'm smart enough to understand the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:02 PM

101. Did you hear what you just wrote.

You did not write that HRC "said" (emphasis added) that "she will be against it.... etc"

You wrote that it "Sounds like she will be against it ... depending" because as people have said, she is not taking a position. She is engaging in hedging Rhetoric to avoid taking any position so she can say something that is safe and can be read from any direction.. She did not even take a solid "wait and see" position which at least would be clear even if avoiding the fact we know a great deal about past trade deals and some of the current drafts from leaks.

If a politician is clear and straightforward, one does not have to guess by saying "i think she said" or "Sounds like she said" or "Sounds like she". If someone takes a position we can usually say what position it is without hedging ourselves on what that position is. In this case, she didn't even clearly take a "wait and see position". This at least would be a position and one which it appears is the position that you think it "sounds like" what Hillary said. See I am not sure what your position is because I have to say "appears like" rather than clearly identifying that you think Hillary is against what has been leaked and what has been included in prior deals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #5)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:47 PM

79. Depends: which way is the wind blowing today? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #5)

Sun May 24, 2015, 09:03 PM

130. Yes.

I hope that clears things up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:14 PM

6. A Non Answer Since She Cannot See The TPP Until It Becomes Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #6)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:20 PM

10. Actually not true

 

There is a 60 day comment period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #10)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:22 PM

15. Prove Your Claims

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #25)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:32 PM

30. Has This Been Signed Into Law - Are Only Proposed By The Senate

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:19 PM

8. The fact that...

.. anyone thinks that the words HRC, or any other high-level politician for that matter, says has any meaning whatsoever in terms of their actual intentions or future governance choices is, well, amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #8)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:20 PM

11. Bernie too?

 

That must be devastating to his supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:22 PM

13. Bernie too...

... but not nearly to the degree a serial-triangulator like HRC can do. At least in terms of record Bernie has something to point to other than an idiotic vote to go to war for nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #13)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:30 PM

26. LOL! Ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #8)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:24 PM

17. I support HRC and I agree with you 100%/NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:21 PM

12. Thank you for posting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:22 PM

14. A very clear responsible rational answer.

"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #14)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:24 PM

18. When Will A Former Senator Be Able To See The TPP - Not Until It Becomes Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:31 PM

28. Has This Been Signed Into Law - Are Only Proposed By The Senate

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #28)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:57 PM

45. You're still wrong

 

The TPA includes that requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #45)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:58 PM

47. Is The TPA Now Law - Has The Bill Been Signed Into Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #47)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:22 PM

92. no it hasn't. The bill that passed the Senate is for

Fast track TO BE USED FOR ANY TRADE BILL NEGOTIATED. This basically means that there is a vote on the agreement as negotiated with no amendments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #18)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:28 PM

23. Wrong!

Facts matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #23)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:31 PM

29. Has This Been Signed Into Law - Are Only Proposed By The Senate

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #29)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:53 PM

38. Nothing is law.

The Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority which now goes to a skeptical House.

If TPA passed Congress it authorizes the administration to negotiate trade agreements following Congressional guidelines and final approval.

We will all see TPP published on-line in a final draft before Congress does anything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #38)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:54 PM

40. So There Is Nothing To See Until A Law Is Passed - Thank You For Confirming That

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #40)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:55 PM

42. The TPA includes that requirement.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #42)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:56 PM

44. Is The TPA Now Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #44)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:58 PM

46. Can't pass the TPP without it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #46)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:58 PM

48. Is The TPA Now Law - Has The Bill Been Signed Into Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #48)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:00 PM

53. If it isn't you won't have to worry about the TPP

 

Why don't you just admit you were wrong. It's not a sin to make a mistake. Even on the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #53)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:01 PM

54. Has This Been Signed Into Law - Yes Or No

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #54)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:05 PM

59. It appears it's about to be....

 

And if it isn't there will not be a TPP bill to worry about. Come on - it's not the end of the world to admit you are wrong. You can do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #59)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:06 PM

60. Thank You For Confirming That The TPA Is Not Yet Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #60)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:10 PM

62. Do you now concede the TPP will have a public comment period?

 

Or can you explain how the TPP can pass if TPA fails? I'm very interested in your thoughts on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #62)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:22 PM

68. You won't get them.

Good luck trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #68)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:23 PM

70. Yep - I think you're right

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #62)

Mon May 25, 2015, 02:43 PM

153. Who gives a flying fuck? After the kabuki periods the TeaPubliKlans will decide if it protects

workers and the environment enough for their satisfaction and the guy pushing it with all his might will declare victory.

If you are for fast track then you are for not only this scam but everyone for six years no matter what future rhetoric or votes no you put on for show.

This is it, this is the time opposition functionally matters. Anything else is hedging and rationalizing.

Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Mark her as affirmative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #153)

Mon May 25, 2015, 02:45 PM

154. The poster I was responding to....

 

Seemed to "give a fuck."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #44)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:59 PM

49. Are you serious?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #49)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:59 PM

52. Ridicule Is The First Signature Of Debaters With No Defense

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #52)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:02 PM

55. Well I'm responding to you seriously

 

.... And rationally. And that's not working either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #55)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:03 PM

57. One Has Still Not Confirmed Or Denied If The TPA Is Now Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #57)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:08 PM

61. Okay, let's try it this way...

 

The TPA includes a 60 day minimum comment period. It appears that it will pass. If it does not pass do you think there is any possibility of TPP passing? The answer is no. None.

So it's silly to say that the TPP will be passed with the public not seeing it. It's just not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #61)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:24 PM

107. And if there are things "still being negotiated" that she doesn't like, then would she support TPA?

 

If the TPP is not a "done deal" yet the way she's describing it, and she doesn't like parts of what appear to be in it, then shouldn't it be logical that she should NOT want the TPA to pass?

And by the way, the TPP COULD pass without the TPA, it just would be practically harder, especially if it has a lot of CRAP that people don't like that congress people don't want to attach their names to, even if a lot of campaign money is attached to passing it.

If it is so good for us, then we shouldn't be too worried about passing TPA NOW, and either pass it later AFTER the TPP is finally drafted in final form where pols like Hillary can say whether they like it or don't like it, or just pass the TPP by itself under regular congressional rules if it is so good for us.

The bottom line is that Hillary wants to get credit for "having reservations" about it, but not take ownership of either encouraging a future congress of hers to take actions based on those reservations to publicly say whether they should pass or not pass TPA. Which tells me that either:

a) she is trying to avoid making any firm commitments to the public, and by being quiet anticipates that it will pass the way her corporate backers want it to, or
b) she doesn't really care that these things that she "has reservations on" are a part of the TPP and get passed with it.

Either a or b tells me that she doesn't really care about working for the interests of us and communicating with us what she wants to happen. If she really cares about these "reservations" the way she's trying to say here, then she should say that unless these issues are resolved to her liking before the TPA is put to the House for a vote, that she would recommend that the House vote it down. Then we can know that if she supports or doesn't support the TPA, that she supports what's in the TPP in total or not, and have that as a metric to judge her by as a candidate. Right now we have just a lot of ambiguity (by DESIGN in my book!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #107)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:45 PM

111. That's quite a load of...

conjecture there!

It can't just be simply her answer?

"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."

Not the answer you want? You're going to give it for her...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #111)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:49 PM

112. Then simply by her standards, we shouldn't pass TPA now should we?

 

Why decide to pass it without changes NOW with TPA if TPP still hasn't been completed yet?

Why would you agree to do something, if you don't know what you are agreeing to, and are already against some of the things you think will be what you are going to be asked to do? That is what passing TPA in effect does now.

Even if Hillary might want to support TPP in its final form, she should provide LEADERSHIP now in saying that what's on paper now is NOT ready for us to pass TPA yet to get TPP passed later without "questioning it" then that is codified with passing TPA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #112)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:01 PM

114. Do you have any idea what is in TPA?

It's not secret. It covers each idea Hillary touches on. And a whole lot more!

The Senate added amendments. Now TPA heads to the House. Where anything can happen. Are you suggesting the Republican House is waiting with baited breath for some Hillary leadership? They don't listen to the actual president!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #114)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:32 PM

118. You are confusing TPA with TPP. TPA is the code word for Fast Track...

 

Fast Track is what is being decided NOW! With one vote left in the House. It is time for one to take a stance on it if one wants to keep it from passing the House. If she waits any longer, Fast Track (TPA) will pass, and with it, TPP will likely get passed later.

If Democrats in the Senate had been standing against TPA, it wouldn't have gotten to a vote, without corporate Democrats support. If Hillary emphasized that Democrats that are with her should vote against it, then they might have voted against it then. Obama is a lame duck. Hillary is potentially the future leader that congress will need to work with.

If she takes the stance of what people want, and who she SHOULD in good conscience be siding with, then congress critters would be less likely to get bought than they were without hers or Obama's guidance to vote against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #118)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:46 PM

119. I have no confusion.

Trade Promotion Authority is not code word for "fast track." Actually, 'fast track' is a misnomer attached to TPA!

TPA is Congressional authorization for the administration to negotiate trade agreements. The House will consider and vote on it maybe in June.

Depending on what TPA specifies, if passed, that will determine if TPP or any other agreements will even be forwarded by the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #111)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:55 PM

129. If you are for TPA then you are for the TPP and whatever the next rounds of garbage are no matter

what excuses and rationalizations you have for why.

It is too late to care when you are hanging your hopes for a good deal that protects American workers and the environment on the TeaPubliKlans.

Yes, you are for it and them all regardless of impotent posturing after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #52)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:02 PM

56. You ask the same question over and over.

You have been answered. "Nothing is law."

And you are 'cantbeserious'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #56)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:04 PM

58. The TPA Had To Be Approved As Law - Is It Now Law

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #56)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:12 PM

63. I don't think the poor dear....

 

....Understands how the process works. Can't have the TPP unless the TPA passes. TPA includes the provision for a comment period of 60 days minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #63)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:20 PM

67. "TP whatever bad!"

"Hillary bad!"

"Obama bad!"

How can you possibly argue with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #52)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:59 PM

83. Yep.

There are some here who will stretch themselves into pretzels to defend the indefensible. After all who cares if we lose our sovereignty as a country? Those high priced corporate lawyers will make sure we are taken care of in trade disputes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #83)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:51 PM

113. Stretch themselves into pretzels?

What you said - "After all who cares if we lose our sovereignty as a country?"

I'm looking for some mustard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #40)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:18 PM

87. the law under consideration is fast track.

I assume that what you are speaking of seeing is not the bill to allow fast track, which is available via Thomas the Congressional record on line.

You are speaking of the various trade agreements that will be given fast track. Each of these agreements will need to be ratified by the Senate. The difference is that the agreement as negotiated by the administration will be voted on as is. The point is no amendments. Before a vote on each trade agreement, it will be public. Everyone can see it before it is actually voted on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #18)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:53 PM

128. As SoS she helped negotiate it. On page 69 she goes into detail about negotiating

with Vietnam. But of course, she's assuming, and it seems correctly so, that her supporters haven't read her book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #128)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:22 PM

136. Excellent point

I have the book but have not read it yet. I'm in the middle of trying to finish three other books before I start another one. Coincidentally one of the three is The Bully Pulpit which talks about progressive politics in the early 20th century. That one is a long ass book, plus I've got it on e-book which makes it harder to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #14)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:25 PM

19. That's what I think too

 

And she has been saying the same thing all along. Hopefully we can dispense with the canard that she hasn't addressed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #19)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:27 PM

21. And this is all President Obama has asked for!

Look at the TPP before you judge it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #14)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:59 PM

50. I'm sure she will sit down and read the entire thing with a team of experts at her elbow

 

...And accomplish a full and reasoned analysis before the legislature is forced to pass or crash as-is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:33 PM

31. As I've said all along...

 

If she's forced to give a yes/no answer, she'll say she has serious concerns, but it's better than no deal.

That's what she always does in these situations.

She read part of the script on that video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #31)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:39 PM

33. That's not what she said

 

Watch the video. She did not say it's better than no deal at all.

Why do you think she voted against CAFTA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #33)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:53 PM

39. Not *yet*

 

Just the serious concerns part - until she has to (publicly) make a decision.

Good point on CAFTA, although that's an outlier for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #39)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:54 PM

41. It's the only major trade pact

 

Voted on while she was a senator. So I'm not sure how you can claim its an "outlier" for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:39 PM

32. How did we know there would be some of the remarks? For some it does not matter what she says

or where she stands on an issue it will be complaint after complaint. She has stated she will make her decision AFTER the final release of the agreement, she also added some concerns so here is her answer. There isn't a need to rewrite her statement, she is quiet capable of giving a statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #32)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:44 PM

35. Facts don't matter to these folks

 

That is all I can conclude. They are invested in their caricature of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #35)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:47 PM

36. By the end of the week they will be re-enforced with a whole list of new talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 02:59 PM

51. unrec

 

When an answer isn't one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #51)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:58 PM

100. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #51)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:20 PM

105. Question: "Where are you on the trade agreement?"

You are suggesting Hillary didn't answer the question?

Or is it really, "When an answer isn't the one I want?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #105)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:26 PM

143. She answered the question in her book. She admitted to helping craft it. On page

69 she goes into detail about negotiations with Vietnam.

Now she has amnesia about what's in it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #143)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:44 PM

144. There are 12 countries in the TPP negotiations.

You do understand as of right now, Congress has not authorized or completed guidelines on what these negotiations should include?

The executive branch has been proposing and negotiating frameworks of agreements for years, but nothing is written in stone.

Until Congress finalizes what they will approve, there is nothing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #144)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:50 PM

145. I was only citing one reference in her book. There are over a dozen, but you would

Know that if you actually read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #145)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:59 PM

146. You are missing my point.

It doesn't matter what Hillary did regarding negotiations several years ago. Some of it may stick, some of it may not. She very clearly pointed out she would withhold judgment until she sees it.

Unlike the rest of us, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #146)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:18 PM

147. She didn't withold judgement in her book. I find it disheartening now that she is being

A fence sitter after giving her robust support Hard Decisions. Maybe the hard decision she made was changing her mind.

By the way, I get your point.

Do you get mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #147)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:49 PM

150. In the book, she is supporting the goals of the negotiating.

There was no final trade agreement she could support.

She has just said again she supports the goals, but wants to see the final draft before she makes a judgment. She will see it on-line with the rest of us. When we can all make reasonable rational judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #150)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:57 PM

151. That's not what she said in the book. She called it the "gold standard". I've actually read her book

and know what she wrote. Please don't confuse me with someone who has no knowledge of her position and relies on talking points.

Her mind is made up, she just doesn't have the backbone to defend her position. She's counting on the fact that people didn't read her book, and apparently she is right for thinking so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #51)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:38 PM

127. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:16 PM

65. The TPP is rolling down the fast tracks

 

just like war in Iraq. Clouds of corporate sponsored bullshit billowing around and politicians cheering ti on or ducking for cover. Will anybody stand in the tracks and stop this thing? Doubtful. If we had a "trade Agreement" written by unions, workers and environmentalists instead of corporate lobbyists who would support it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #65)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:39 PM

76. Trade Advisory Committees

Why negotiate with countries that have no labor or environmental standards? Why influence how they move into the future? And what will we compromise, because no one gets everything they want?

When the TPP is published on-line for you to see, then you can make your own judgment.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/labor-advisory-committee-lac

https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/trade-and-environment-policy-advisory-committee-tepac

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #76)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:45 PM

78. I do not trust or like the all or nothing

 

position we are forced into. I am predisposed toward rejection under the all or nothing preconditions. I do not trust or generally agree with the folks (corporate lobbyists) who are doing the negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:32 PM

74. I have a simple rule: If the corporations are for it, the people are going to get screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #74)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:43 PM

77. Well it's not that simple

 

But I take your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #74)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:48 PM

80. 99% true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #74)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:51 PM

81. And let's not forget. If the republicans are for it, people are going to get screwed

 

This pos "passes" both criteria

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #74)

Sun May 24, 2015, 03:51 PM

81. And let's not forget. If the republicans are for it, people are going to get screwed

 

This pos "passes" both criteria

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:17 PM

86. Exactly.

Since it is not completely negotiating, no one should be taking these big stands on it yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 04:19 PM

89. Thanks. I enjoy hearing the candidates themselves

talk about issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:23 PM

106. Bernie doesn't " restate " he States without ingratiating himself .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #106)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:32 PM

109. Only on the issues he chooses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:31 PM

108. So her Answer is a Firm, Resounding...Maybe I could Be against it. Or Not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #108)

Sun May 24, 2015, 05:37 PM

110. Or she can blame the intelligence

for going to war or any other thing. She pandering and triangulating her answers as always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #108)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:10 PM

117. Maybe she isn't like the rest of us...

who can be firmly against something which doesn't actually exist.

"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #117)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:06 PM

139. Why do you suppose Congressional leaders have been told they are sworn to secrecy

on this agreement? Do you honestly believe they are sworn to secrecy on something that doesn't actually exist? If you do believe this I have an amazing bridge for sale in West Texas that I'd love to talk to you about. I'm selling it for M$100. I think you would agree you should go ahead and buy it and worry about whether it actually exists later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 06:06 PM

115. Yes, last time she was asked she said that if the TPP wasn't good we should "be prepared to consider

Walking away".

What a finely honed piece of equivocation THAT was. She couldn't even suggest that we should be prepared to ACTUALLY walk away, but we should be prepared to consider it.

I'm sure the Bob Shrum level geniuses in charge of her messaging are telling her to avoid giving concrete answers like they are poison oak, but "leadership" it aint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #115)

Sun May 24, 2015, 07:22 PM

120. This is caled 'parsing.'

You can spin anywhere you want by the word.

What she said - "...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."

In case watching the video, what she just said 2 days ago, has nothing to do with comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #120)

Sun May 24, 2015, 07:41 PM

121. Yeah, I know what it's called.

I'm looking for a different word this time around, it's called "leadership".

It's not even about the TPP per se. It's about taking clearly articulated stands on potentially controversial issues, without worrying whether some people may or may not like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #121)

Sun May 24, 2015, 07:48 PM

122. By every measure...

Hillary Clinton is the top candidate for President of the United States.

I think she has leadership covered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #122)

Sun May 24, 2015, 07:56 PM

123. And Surely twice as inevitable as last time, even!

Still, there will be a primary process. The Convention is still a year out.

Plenty of time for folks to figure out that talking down to lifelong Democratic party activists might not be the best way to woo their votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #123)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:04 PM

124. I'm not wooing your vote.

I am explaining to anyone who might read your comments that there are facts and other opinions.

This is not an Echo Chamber and we are not in a Bubble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #124)

Sun May 24, 2015, 08:07 PM

125. Clearly.

I dont decide who to vote for or not on the basis of DU, anyway.

Of course there are facts and opinions- and my opinion, here, is that I dont care how may self-appointed experts say it is, refusing to take clear stands on controversial issues is NOT "leadership", any more than a rusty pickup truck is a saturn V rocket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #115)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:18 PM

141. So you fault her for NOT having....

 

.... A knee jerk response. Okay. Well I like that about her. To each their own. But I can't imagine how having a president prone to knee jerk responses would be good for the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #141)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:40 PM

149. No, we are faulting her for not supporting US labor.

And we understand the third way does not give a crap about that. Just so we're clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #149)

Tue May 26, 2015, 12:25 AM

157. She has always supported labor....

 

In fact one of the provisions she sought in the TPP was collective bargaining rights for workers in the countries included in the trade pact.

Fancy that, huh?

She will have plenty of support from labor and unions when she wins the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #157)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

167. "Collective bargaining rights for workers in the countries included in the trade pact"

We've been over this. Bargaining over whether to receive .25/hour or .35/hour because all of our jobs have moved overseas is not the kind of "leveling" I wish to see in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #167)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:11 PM

169. So it's better if workers can't organize?

 

Is that your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #169)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:14 PM

171. lol - no it's better to vote for Bernie

and send the third way packing. Is that clear enough for you ProSense - um - I mean "MaggieD".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #171)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:15 PM

172. What's his plan to combat the effects....

 

Of globalization? Just pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #172)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:21 PM

174. My plan is to continue to organize

because we have to join with other workers globally to fight back against billionaires who are now obviously not loyal to any one country. And that's why we need the internet. And that's why I'm fighting TPP.

For those who are interested - what we've managed to find out so far: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #174)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:27 PM

177. Again - what is Bernie's plan?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #177)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:41 PM

178. https://berniesanders.com/


nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #178)

Tue May 26, 2015, 02:46 PM

179. There is nothing there...

 

That includes a plan for anything let alone tackling issues like globalization. It's simply a statement about 3 problems. No plan. And certainly nothing about globalization.

So apparently I'm not the only one that has no idea what his plan is. You don't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #141)

Mon May 25, 2015, 04:54 PM

155. Having a defined position is not a "knee jerk response"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #155)

Tue May 26, 2015, 12:19 AM

156. I like her detailed answers....

 

.... Rather than just hearing no from Bernie. To each their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:03 PM

132. "Creating a level playing field" -

I'd like to know exactly what is meant by that. Does her vision include all of us worldwide working for peanuts? Because that seems to be the direction we're going. The more jobs we outsource, the more we lose here, drives wages down here in the US because there is more competition for every single job. Meanwhile in other countries yes, jobs are created. But are we, globally speaking, cruising to a lowest common denominator? Is THAT what "creating a level playing field" means? Because that is what I'm seeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #132)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:27 PM

137. I also noticed that and took it the same way you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #132)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:15 PM

140. That's exactly what it means. Neoliberals are amazingly concerned with

 

the struggle of the poor-- but only on one very, very specific front; the slave workers in Third World countries. If we're talking about Social Security, corporate taxes, Wall Street regulation, and all the rest, they're proud to say they're 'conservative on fiscal issues'.

But on this one point, they're suddenly Mother Theresa, so concerned with the plight of the poor that they just have to send some US jobs there, so those people can do them in exchange for a daily bowl of gruel.

You know-- to help!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #132)

Mon May 25, 2015, 12:21 PM

142. Well one thing the U.S. is trying to do....

 

Is include rights to unions organizing in other countries included in the pact. So that would certainly seem to advance to goal of leveling the playing field.

I'll believe it when I see it. But that is one of the U.S. objectives in the negotiations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #142)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:23 PM

148. Again no one is defining what "leveling the playing field" means -

are you trying to tell me the billionaires will support unions in other countries? And then when those unions are able to get .25 an hour rather than .15 we have victory? While our wages steadily drop here.

WTF? Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:08 PM

133. Baloney. She's dodging comment on the real TPP (and being silent on the TPA).

 

Her "position" on TPP is that she's going to make up her mind, with key considerations being whether it addresses currency manipulation and whether it includes ISDS.

That's garbage. We already know, for a fact, based on statements from the Obama Administration, that TPP does not and will not include currency manipulation, and that it does and will include ISDS.

Therefore, she's stated her "position" in support of a fantasy agreement that has no counterpart back here in the real world. She alluded vaguely to generic goals. On the real agreement that will be presented, her "position" is that she favors an agreement that helps American jobs and opposes an agreement that imperils national security. Wow, that's brave.

And, of course, on the TPA, which is now the subject of ferocious politicking on Capitol Hill and where she could actually use her stature to influence the outcome one way or the other, she's absolutely silent. The full text is available online so she doesn't even have the dodge of waiting to see the text.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sun May 24, 2015, 10:19 PM

135. Hillary's "opinion" reminds me of a line from a song.

I think it goes something like when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon May 25, 2015, 07:27 AM

138. Nob being adamantly against this pile of dog shit should be a DQ for any Democratic candidate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon May 25, 2015, 01:58 PM

152. I can appreciate thoughtful, BUT

There is a fine fine line between being thoughtful and trying very hard to avoid committing to something that will offend people, especially those wealthy people whose favor you are courting. She simultaneously spoke of dangers, but also that we must open trade. This moves the goalposts of the argument now, because, as we know, some are questioning whether any of these "Trade agreements" are desirable in the first place.

If she was being affirmative against the TPP, but wanted to avoid discussing it at all, she could say what she has said in the past, that she wants to renegotiate NAFTA back in 2008.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hillary-clintons-nafta-u-turn-says-something-about-her-8212-and-us/

Now, here is a question, since NAFTA I still an issue. Why, when it was a CAMPAIGN POSITION of hers in 2008, has she not made a comment about that now, especially when it would win over many on the Sanders left that frankly think this mess started with NAFTA. It is not like Nafta stopped being an issue in 2008. The fact that she is walking back a campaign position that happens to be VERY pertinent to the agreement called "Nafta on steroids" makes me wonder where she stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Tue May 26, 2015, 11:26 AM

166. ...............




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Tue May 26, 2015, 03:04 PM

180. Harry Reid calling the TPP "Insanity"

There is also a video at the following link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/harry-reid-trade-insanity_n_7343106.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"It causes huge job losses," Reid said. "As Einstein said, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, and you expect a different result, that's the definition of insanity."

"We can look at these trade bills over the years -- every one of them without exception causes to American workers job losses. Millions of job losses," Reid added. "But yet they're going to try the same thing again and hope for a different result. That's insanity."

... Who do you trust on this ? Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread