General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think this TPP deal might be the beginning of the end of Hillary's Presidential aspirations
I think this will motivate the democrats to vote for Sanders.Tom Hartman was on a African American station explaining to the listeners what the TPP is and whats going to happen.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DURHAM D
(33,053 posts)
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 11, 2015, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)
ages ago.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Bernie is going to eat her alive in the debates over this mark my word
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)campaign on the 14th so that Hillary can plead no comment. We have to keep asking her about it even if it passes.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)For her to be mute is unacceptable.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Because you say something doesn't make it so. But nice try keep dreaming!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Maybe because the only reason for the TPP is to give more power to corporations.
I will keep dreaming and fighting to get the influence of Goldman-Sachs and the crooked banksters out of our government.
Support the people's candidate and not the billionaire's.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Do you care?
Where do you stand on it?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)be on yet. That's got to be awkward.
demwing
(16,916 posts)We will keep dreaming... Dreaming of a more democratic America.
Thanks for the good advice!
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)But her silence here and on Florida drilling when asked just last week....she lost me totally. I no longer even respect Hillary. How can we????
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I thought that sounded familiar.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)the more likely I am to support TPP.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The people who' re making a fortune for themselves by supporting endless wars, and are pro-Monsanto and GMO's, people who are caught up in loving themselves the Big Bankers, can get their votes from the CEO's of the firms profiting from those things.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)but Hillary doesn't have a vote.
MoonchildCA
(1,349 posts)It's extremely important we understand how a future president stands on trade policy, is it not?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)We're talking about influence and what kind of stand she takes.
And what kind of noise she makes.
But she wouldn't want to upset Wall Street by speaking out against the TPP.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)That speaks very loudly about her and her loyalties.
She is toast.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so-called Trade Agreements. Why don't you explain why she is right about the TPP? Tell us what is good about the TPP.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)at the very least that fast track be stopped. She doesn't need a vote for that.
demwing
(16,916 posts)I for one, would like to know how she'd use it
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Keep looking..
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)on the Playing Fields of Eton!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Not a dream you share obviously. The numbers of American children living in poverty is increasing and your Goldman-Sachs and billionaires don't care. They want more and more.
Stand with the People's candidate stand with Sen Sanders.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)
OilemFirchen
(7,288 posts)
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Why do I think the average voter is going to feel differently...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I certainly don't buy it. He sells lots of woo.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Bye bye.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I've heard some of the wildest conspiracy theories about JFK ever on his show.
His show is the only thing on WCPT I refuse to listen to. I'll disagree with Norman Goldman on occasion, but at least Norm will formulate a rational argument and refuses to push woo.
Hartmann went off the deep end when he affiliated himself with RT.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sen Sanders has an uphill fight against the billionaires, but it's a fight worth fighting.
Do you support lower taxes on the billionaires? That's what they will want for their billion dollar investment.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
Go buy some of the gold he's selling.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)A difference from saying that he is an anti-vaxxer.
From an interview with Kennedy:
“I’m pro-vaccine. I’ve had all six of my kids vaccinated,” he added. “I think we ought to have state and federal policies that maximize vaccine coverage of the population. But I think we have to begin the process by making sure the vaccines are safe, efficacious and that the regulatory agency which recommends vaccines … and monitors them has integrity and credibility, and, unfortunately, that is not the case at the moment.”
Also from the interview:
"Since then, Kennedy has made stops in California and New Jersey, eager to the combat the growing sentiment against anti-vaccine legislation. He counts among a number of public figures who have spoken out against vaccines including Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, Donald Trump, and Billy Corgan of alternative rock band Smashing Pumpkins — all of whom believe that vaccines cause autism.
Read more here:http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/05/08/3656923/rfk-jr-against-vaccines/
So when you brand him as an "anti-vaxxer" what exactly do you mean?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I have zero respect for the man and no respect for Thom Hatmann for pushing his bullshit anti-science and-vaxxer nuttery.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Kennedy's actual words and actions are at odds with your characterization of him. Do you have a link to demonstrate Kennedy's anti-vaxxer philosophy?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I refuse to consider anything the man has to say since that day and I have not listened to Thom Hartmann since.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And I heard him talk about the MMR shot as having a higher component dose of thimerosal than is strictly necessary. He also talked about the fact that the thimerosal component of the vaccine was increased to allow for a longer shelf life.
And there are studies showing that mercury is a neurotoxin. Given that thimerosal is a mercury compound,
Thiomersal, commonly known in the U.S. as thimerosal, is an organomercury compound. This compound is a well established antiseptic and antifungal agent. The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave thiomersal the trade name Merthiolate. Wikipedia
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Im sure mega drug corporation never make anything dangerous. We should just trust them and their own evaluations of their drug. Just like Monsanto just take their word for it. Just like oil companies say fossil fuels dont cause global warming. Just like tobacco companies use to say they didnt cause cancer. And they all have their studies to prove it... its safe never question the corporatocrisy. Just obey.
What Kennedy is advocating is safe vaccines. And safe guards to ensure safe vaccines. People do die from complications with some vaccines they are not 100% safe. We dont really know whats in them and what effects they have on us and again ill point you to the first paragraph on the trust worthiness of corporations and their studies.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)thread
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That doesn't sound very "politically liberal". If not politically liberal, how would you describe your ideology?
This thread is about the TPP, why don't you explain why you support the union killing TPP?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you also despise Edward Snowden, all whistle-blowers, OWS, protestors in general, journalists that speak truth to power, anyone that dares not agree with the president? I'd be interested in what your principles are.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)excuse for the private email server was the beginning of the end of Hillary's Presidential aspirations.
Nobody needs 2 phones for 2 email accounts, not now and not then. The excuse is insane and it took her team over a week to come up with it.
You can't win when you respond like that. You just can't.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)I'd really like to know that, because her reasons for having it in the first place were for greater security.
In the spirit of this thread I'd like to say that since we didn't hear anything to the contrary, her private server was never hacked, thus proving her reasons for setting it up in the first place.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So many things wrong with that statement I am not sure the internet is big enough for this....
Umm.... not the entire government was hacked. Some personal information for employees was hacked, but that is in no way anything like THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT WAS HACKED!!!
Also, Hillary is not part of the government now. Claiming that "the rest" was hacked implies that you somehow misunderstand that very basic fact. Former Sec. of State Clinton is in no way part of the government now.
Now to the substance. Sec. Clinton was in charge of the State Department. If it was somehow possible to have a more secure server in her basement then she should have done something to improve server security for her department. Pretty much everyone else's emails went into a government site. Why did she allow that security risk? See how that makes no sense? Nobody believes that her private server was more secure. Nobody who in any way can grasp reality that is.
She also claimed that she never sent any classified information on that server. If her reason in the first place was for greater security, then why be careful to not send classified information with it? See how that also makes no sense at all?
We also have no way to know if her server was ever breached or not. We know only that the Clintons never announced that there was a breach. Maybe it is true that it was not hacked. Maybe it was hacked and they don't even know it. Maybe it was hacked and they don't want to admit it. We will never really know.
http://www.abc2news.com/news/breaking-news/clinton-no-classified-material-sent-via-her-personal-emails_84490510_
^snip^
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton says she didn't send any classified material on her personal email while secretary of state.
The possible Democratic presidential candidate said during a news conference on Tuesday that she "fully complied with every rule I was governed by."
"I didn't email any classified material to anyone on my email," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/security-of-hillary-clintons-private-e-mail-server-comes-under-scrutiny/2015/03/10/fcccfb78-c737-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html
^snip^
“The layers of security that would have to be employed to make a privately run exchange server as secure as something that is secured by the federal government would be pretty significant,” said Timothy Ryan, a former FBI supervisory special agent who now manages cyber investigations for Kroll. “It’s not that it can’t be done. I just find it improbable.”
In a question-and-answer sheet released Tuesday, Clinton’s office stated that “robust protections” were put in place and “upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”
The office said “there is no evidence there was ever a breach” of the server.
Some experts said it’s impossible to know for certain whether that’s the case. Clinton, according to at least one forensic account, was using a standard commercial server running on Microsoft software that, like any widely available software, has been found to have vulnerabilities.
Your statements are simply false and because you can not use the truth to support your position on this matter your position must then be wrong.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)else. but I know I'd have a lot more respect for her if she took a solid position one way or the other Before the vote.
It would restore a bit of trust. Whether I would agree or not with her isn't the point.
GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)Sanders to Clinton: The Time to Come Clean on TPP, Fast Track is 'Right Now'
Calling out Clinton for being wishy-washy on the TPP, Sanders says: 'If she’s against this, we need her to speak out.'
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)GoneOffShore
(18,018 posts)Doesn't change my mind about her, but still.
Vinca
(53,941 posts)It's not a big deal. If she's going to keep having "conversations," she needs to talk.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)markpkessinger
(8,908 posts)How significant!
Evidently she's fine with allowing corporations to sue governments for losses in "anticipated profits" as a result of any laws or regulations they might pass.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)markpkessinger
(8,908 posts). . . but neither did she say it was an area of concern.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Saying something she did not say.
markpkessinger
(8,908 posts). . . she would have mentioned it in this context.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
mother earth
(6,002 posts)nations will be if TPP is allowed to pass, you've gotta be brain dead.
If they pass TPP before the election, it won't give a pass to anyone, those against it will be remembered. There is a shift taking place & the wave is only beginning.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This is big on activist radars, but most voters simply do not care.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)We all need to do our part to educate & spread the word.
Today I heard WikiLeaks exposed part of the deal...stay tuned.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Jons and pay will both soar.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Come on, really? We are not living in a bubble. This info is readily available, if you can't see the harm for yourself, or don't want to see it.
Job losses play a role in the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States as well. Since NAFTA began, nearly 300,000 family farms in Mexico have been put out of business. The lack of work is forcing Mexican workers to seek employment and better opportunities elsewhere to support their families. The United States is where they set their sights; the number of Mexicans migrating each year to our country has more than doubled. In 1993, there was an estimated 3.9 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. By 2011, that number exploded to an estimated 23 million.
Illegal immigration is something that will not be fixed unless our government leaders place particular attention on the root causes behind migration to the U.S. This means that if we want any sort of immigration reform, elements of NAFTA are going to have to be readdressed and improved upon, because the failures of the North American Free Trade Agreement have resulted in the job losses, outsourcing, trade deficits, and migration that we are faced with today. If the job outlook continues to remain unfavorable in Mexico, we will continue to see illegal immigrants seeking opportunities here. Renegotiating NAFTA is where real immigration reform must begin.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/disastrous-nafta-failures-negatively-impact-u-s-jobs-illegal-immigration
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Have you really managed to convince yourself that that was a bad time for US workers? Really?
U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaled $97.2 billion and displaced an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs
And 23 million net jobs were created during that period.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)TPP:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/obama-twists-arms-tpp-lets-take-look-back-dems-who-sold-us-out-nafta
& there's the big sucking sound:
This is all the more damning because this treaty was created, and is administered, by the very Washington elite that is loudest in proclaiming free trade's virtues. So there is no room for excuses about incompetent implementation, the standard alibi for free trade's failures in the developing world. So if free trade was going to work anywhere, it should have been here.
Instead, what happened? NAFTA was sold as a policy that would reduce America's trade deficit. But our trade balance actually worsened against both Canada and Mexico.
For the four years prior to NAFTA's implementation in 1994, America's annual deficit with Canada averaged a modest $8.1 billion. Twelve years later, it was up to $71 billion.
Our trade with Mexico showed a $1.6 billion surplus in 1993 but by 2010, our deficit had reached $61.6 billion.
Eccentric billionaire and 1992 presidential candidate H. Ross Perot was roundly mocked for predicting a "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico if NAFTA passed. But he has been vindicated. The Department of Labor has estimated that NAFTA cost America 525,000 jobs between 1994 and 2002. According to the more aggressive Economic Policy Institute:
More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/more-free-trade-agreement_b_838196.html
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Bottom line? Free trade was pushed not because of any sincerely anticipated economic benefits, but to serve an extraneous foreign policy agenda. To his credit, Krugman later admitted the utter chicanery of it all, writing in The New Democrat in 1996 that:
The agreement was sold under false pretences. Over the protests of most economists, the Clinton Administration chose to promote NAFTA as a jobs-creation program. Based on little more than guesswork, a few economists argued that NAFTA would boost our trade surplus with Mexico, and thus produce a net gain in jobs. With utterly spurious precision, the administration settled on a figure of 200,000 jobs created--and this became the core of the NAFTA sales pitch.
NAFTA was sold in Mexico as Mexico's ticket to the big time. Mexicans were told they were choosing between gradually converging with America's advanced economy and regressing to the status of a backwater like neighboring Guatemala.
What actually happened? In reality, the income gap between the United States and Mexico grew (by over 10 percent) in the first decade of the agreement. This doesn't mean America boomed; we didn't. But Mexico slumped terribly.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I keep seeing this "NAFTA was good" line trotted out but I see 0% recognition of the huge asset bubble that started inflated right after it. I'm curious how one can ascribe the effects of a bubble to NAFTA when I can, quite literally, find the same effects from any bubble in history. Please, enlighten us all.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Point to any metric, any metric at all, by which things were worse after 1994 than they were before it.
Don't tell me an anecdote about somebody who lost his job or about a factory that closed. That happens all the time, before NAFTA and after. Show me actual numbers of some metric by which things as a whole got worse after NAFTA than before. Anything. Unemployment. Median wages. Median incomes. Wages at quintiles. Incomes at quintiles. Poverty. Child poverty. Food insecurity. Homelessness. Something else. Pick anything (I'll even give you a hint that some of those things got worse, though most got better). Just actually make an argument based on what happened.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)http://www.epi.org/publication/heading_south_u-s-mexico_trade_and_job_displacement_after_nafta1/
Sorry, but you don't get to claim the Greenspan put as a benefit of NAFTA. Well, unless you want to lay the blame for the two popped bubbles caused by it on NAFTA. It wouldn't be true, but it'd be fine by me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Look at what happens after 1994 compared to before.
Things got better after NAFTA. Compensation rose, after 25 years of losing ground.
EDIT: I helpfully included a red vertical line showing when NAFTA was. Would you rather have worked in the 20 years before that red line, or the 20 years after?
EDIT AGAIN: They also break it out by gender (but remember that this is cumulative, and women are starting from a lower median salary in 1970, so women don't actually end up making more than men):
Again, which side of that red line would you prefer to work in? (If you're male it's roughly a wash; white male incomes have been treading water since 1970 or so.)
The Minneapolis Fed estimates that the consumer price index rose 32% in that period. 218-148 = 70 70/218 = 32%
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community/teaching-aids/cpi-calculator-information/consumer-price-index-and-inflation-rates-1913
More to the point, though, you ignored the title and subject of the link. It's about the de-linkage of productivity and compensation, which, you should note, took a big jump up starting in 1995. Why is that important? That's the basis of income inequality. It was on a nice steep rise and then got a boost right around the time NAFTA got going.
Oh, I edited my original reply to you. You should check it out.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The delinkage started in 1973, and 1995-2000 was the only period in which wages made any gains at all.
Also, I'd like you to answer my question: looking at those charts, would you rather have worked in the 20 years before NAFTA, or the 20 years after?
You should particularly pay attention to where your link said "real income", meaning the CPI was factored in.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The rise starts in 1973, it gets noticeably steeper beginning in 1995. It's blindingly obvious if you actually read the data and not just ignore what's inconvenient.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You're willing to take less in real wages as long as rich people make less too.
Seems weird to me, and I definitely don't agree, but yes: after NAFTA, while median hourly wages increased, the gap between median hourly wages and productivity also increased. If you're really willing to take lower inflation-adjusted wages in exchange for that gap being smaller, than by your values NAFTA made things "worse".
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I'm guessing you still haven't read the edit to my original reply with its estimate of 400k lost jobs to Mexico alone.
This is a bullshit line:
"You're willing to take less in real wages as long as rich people make less too."
No, I'm not willing to kiss a rich man's ass for throwing me the scraps off his table. I didn't say a thing about making rich people less rich. That's all you, chief. My problem is that American workers aren't getting the share of the value they created through their own toil. You might be cool with that, as everything you've written indicates, but I'm not. This is America, Jack. We don't celebrate thievery from the people who actually do the work.
The difference here is that by de-linking productivity and wages, those workers are being paid FAR less then the value they have produced. You may celebrate a rise to just over late 70s levels, but I note that it took 30 years to get there. Why is that important? Our potential GDP has been limited by this trend. The American economy doesn't depend on trade, it depends on internal consumption. The World Bank estimates that exports made up 13.5% of US GDP in 2013. It's not nothing, but it's not 7/8 of GDP either.
Because I don't want to hear it later, I'll point out that the figures for the early 90s have to be taken in the context of the recession that happened in 1991-1992. Income levels were slightly depressed due to that recession, as they always are after a recession, so the gains for the 1995-2010 are slightly skewed from what we'd consider normal. Even so, when you compare the gain to the late 70s, you get a gain of 13.1% over 30 years. That's not much to celebrate. One wonders what it would have been with better distribution of productivity gains and less jobs lost to Mexico and Canada.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Yeah, honestly I'm not that worried about 400K in that context.
My problem is that American workers aren't getting the share of the value they created through their own toil.
Yep. Now, what happened in 1973 that got that started? And why are you blaming trade agreements 20 years later for it? Have you ever considered to whose interest it might be that you do that?
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Were those jobs created as a result of NAFTA? If so, show me the evidence. Show me how many were created as a result of it.
You harp on 1973 all day because you didn't read the damn link. The authors, to whose chart you're clinging, make special note of the fact that productivity took a big old jump in 1995. If you're going to keep harping on that chart, you should do it honestly. Read the article.
By the way, are you ever going to account for the loose money policy of the Fed and those two pesky bubbles? Can you actually separate them from the effects of NAFTA in order to show what a resounding success it was?
As for your last sentence, I have no idea what you mean. Rather than speak in conspiratorial tones, be direct. Explain exactly whose patsy I am for questioning the all-powerful NAFTA and its completely unproven, yet beneficial, effect on the American economy. Please, do something besides pointlessly quibble over the evidence I provide.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You pointed out that the gap between productivity and wages increased faster after NAFTA than before.
I pointed out that real wages were stagnant before NAFTA and increased after it.
You consider the decoupling between productivity and wages more important; I consider the actual real wage level more important. The limited data here suggest that how we manage trade may involve a trade-off between those two. It's a complex subject that we can disagree on without casting the entire thing in a simplistic good vs. evil frame.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)a game changer of the highest order. Once you understand, and you are absolutely right, for the majority they do not yet grasp the voracity and enormity of this corporate coup d'état. There is a shift beginning. That's my story...and I'm sticking to it. 
Time will tell if I am right or if I am wrong.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The term "low information voter" doesn't only apply to republicans. It could just as well apply to Democrats who base their support of presidential candidates solely on name recognition.
So what you're saying is that only Democrats who don't know any better will vote for Clinton because they've heard her name so much?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)multinational corporations.
Martin Eden
(15,587 posts)Mrs. Clinton is the most prominent politically active Democrat, after the president. Congress is about to vote on fast track for TPP, the passage of which could add another nail to the coffin of American labor and further cement the power of corporatocracy over democracy.
NOW (and for the last several months) is the time for a leader who wants to represent the interests of the 99% to use that prominence and name recognition and popularity to defeat this disastrous trade deal before it's too late. HC is not a member of Congress, but she is most definitely in a position to change the dialogue and influence public opinion.
This almost feels like October 2002 when the American people desperately needed strong Democratic leadership to stand up and oppose the rush to the disastrous war in Iraq.
We all know where Hillary Clinton stood then, and it wasn't with us.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Martin Eden
(15,587 posts)That is a tepid response revealing a calculated, noncommittal position.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Responsible.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)be screaming from the rafters to stop fast track.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Be in a position to do anything about it, it is a non issue for Hillary, she is not voting on TPP.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)be constrained be this pact. Furthermore if she is a leader she should be making it her business to do what Sanders is doing and making people aware of what a disaster this will be for everyone but corporations. Otherwise her few non-committal statements can only be read as her supporting the deal.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Has she said she was or was not supporting TPP, no, here is her statement on TPP, too many jump to conclusions without the facts.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-trade-issues-iowa-trip/index.html
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Godot is going to arrive before she forcefully comes out against it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Direction.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)She had a hand in drafting it, and she called it the goddamn gold standard of trade agreements. What is so hard to understand about that?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Perhaps you do not know negotiations changes sometimes on a daily basis, who knows if any of the drafts will remain in the final agreement.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I've heard about this from people here in Japan who have been involved with the negotiations and they say it is a terrible agreement for the average citizen on many, many fronts. It's essentially a giveaway to corporations, and they're not going to do a 180-degree turn at this late stage.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Agreement is complete and then we will make our decision. I have a right to make my opinion when I want.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The problem is, how are the other countries going to sell this piece of festering crap to their citizens?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)That should be a bumper sticker. Hilarious.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)enough for her to have an opinion. She favors the TPP but thinks it's wiser to keep quiet. If she were against it, now is the time to speak out.
Why do you support the TPP? I notice that the progressives go into a lot of detail on why the TPP will hurt American workers and taxpayers. But those that support HRC and the TPP are very quiet about the actual issue.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)She's already the 1%, and supporting something that will *ONLY* benefit the 1% at the expense of many women who are not even just not the 1%, but drowning in poverty, doesn't impress me.
Her unwillingness to speak up and say what she believes is disturbing.
It hasn't exactly gone unnoticed that she has supported the TPP, both as Secretary of State and words straight out of her own mouth that she thinks there should be even more H1B visas issued.
I'm not on the bandwagon for people that want to outsource jobs - you would think that would be a simple thing to state, but she has yet to say that. She *has* however glowingly stated while in India that she thinks it's just great.
I posted a link to that interview a while ago, and I'll dig it up if someone wants to act like she didn't say it herself.
Declare where you stand. If you agree with the TPP, make no bones about it. If you don't agree with the TPP, make no bones about it because other candidates, O'Malley and Sanders already have.
Pretending doesn't get the job done.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
CanonRay
(16,161 posts)
ejbr
(5,891 posts)but I think you give the voting public, and the black box voting machines, too much credit.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is doing her no good. None at all. But she's on Goldman's leash and the tenth-percenters want this as much as they wanted bank deregulation.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)She should cone out full blast against it.
I've always thought that an immediate re-alignment in opposition when you find out you're on the side of evil can go a long way.
I hope she does.
I do.
I ain't gonna hold my breath though. 
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)You do realize DU is largely an echo chamber, don't you?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)There are people here who honestly believe that what gets discussed on DU is what is being discussed by real people in real life.
Things like the TPP, Hill's emails, etc., are not even known - no less discussed - by the average voter.
So many posters here just assume that any topic that gets traction on this site is also being discussed, debated, analyzed and argued about at office water-coolers, bus stops, the supermarket, and the local bowling alley.
In truth, most of what gets hotly debated here as "OMG! THIS is the end of civilization as we know it!" isn't even a blip on the average citizen's radar screen.
ms liberty
(11,223 posts)by most of the people here in my community. I doubt we're the only place like that in America. I live in rural NC, mostly furniture and textile country - or we used to be anyway; we were hard hit by these trade deals, and the outsourcing of jobs has been devastating to this area. Republicans, Democrats and Independents around here are going to mistrust this TPP deal when they do hear about it (the ones who arent already aware of it) and see it as selling us all out yet again. Even if the TPP were to prove to be a good thing, that would not prove true before the election.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and today it's a world center for those industries.
The unemployment rate in 1993 in NC was 6%, it's 5.4% now.
The discouraged worker rate in 1993 was 2%, it's 0.8% now.
The median household income in 1993 in NC was $39,718 (in 2014-adjusted dollars) and it was $46,334 in 2014.
The poverty rate it was 22.1% in 1993 and is 17.5% now.
The high school graduation rate is 83.9% compared to 60.2% in 1993
This is a state that managed the transition to a post-industrial economy pretty well.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...as much as they do NSA.
