HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton needs to ...

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:13 PM

 

Hillary Clinton needs to take a stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Just helping get the word out here, that Clinton has not taken a stand. If she doesn't have an opinion yet on something this huge, then she isn't qualified to be president.

Now, I believe she almost certainly has an opinion, she's far too intelligent not to. So, why is she silent? Possible reasons:

1) She supports it. She doesn't want to say it though, because it will hurt her with the left, especially union voters (and rightfully so). I believe there's an 80% chance this is the reason.

2) She opposes it. She is silent because this will put her at odds with the President. Sure, she's polling way ahead of everyone, but if Biden runs and Obama supports him, her support erodes fast. 18% chance this is the reason for her silence.

3) She really has no idea if she supports it or not, or something else. 2% chance.

So, what do you think she does? She can't stay silent forever. My guess is she comes out with a half-assed answer, like "There are many bad things in this trade deal, and I would have pushed for blah blah, but I'd grudgingly support this bill if I were president. It's better than no deal."

I support Bernie, but there are circumstances where I can support her. There is no way I will vote for her if she comes up with that reason and talks on both sides of her mouth.

31 replies, 2536 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton needs to take a stand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Original post)
Reter Jun 2015 OP
leftofcool Jun 2015 #1
Reter Jun 2015 #4
MADem Jun 2015 #11
snagglepuss Jun 2015 #7
leftofcool Jun 2015 #9
cali Jun 2015 #13
snagglepuss Jun 2015 #24
leftofcool Jun 2015 #27
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #8
cali Jun 2015 #12
cali Jun 2015 #2
pampango Jun 2015 #3
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2015 #5
Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #29
Sancho Jun 2015 #6
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #10
cali Jun 2015 #14
Sancho Jun 2015 #15
cali Jun 2015 #16
Sancho Jun 2015 #17
lunamagica Jun 2015 #19
Control-Z Jun 2015 #18
lunamagica Jun 2015 #21
Faryn Balyncd Jun 2015 #23
Sancho Jun 2015 #28
Faryn Balyncd Jun 2015 #31
99Forever Jun 2015 #20
Evergreen Emerald Jun 2015 #22
Reter Jun 2015 #30
Buns_of_Fire Jun 2015 #25
onecaliberal Jun 2015 #26

Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:25 PM

1. She already has

She said there are some trade agreements she has agreed with, some she has been against and on this one, she wants to see the final draft before she decides. There will be some things she likes and some she doesn't. She is not privy to it and has no vote in the matter. Why should she come out and say anything until she is allowed to read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:37 PM

4. She doesn't have to read it in full

 

I haven't read it at all and I hate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:56 PM

11. Annnnnd.....when are you declaring your candidacy??

You're quite obviously not her. So why do you want her to conform to your viewpoints and approaches?

You plainly--by your own admission-- don't need information before you make decisions; that's fine for you hiding behind an avatar of a floppy disk and a meaningless user name. No one's going to stop you on the street and challenge you, or write about your viewpoints in the newspapers.


She's got a higher profile than you do, when she says something, it resonates considerably more than when you speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:50 PM

7. Why doesn't she stand up and demand it be made public, so she

and everyone else can read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:52 PM

9. She is still under oath. She can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:07 PM

13. that is false.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 06:47 PM

24. Are you saying that because she is under oath she cannot state publicly

that she believes the secrecy surrounding TPP is wrong and that she believes everyone should be able to read it? Does the oath her stymie her that much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 07:13 PM

27. I believe it does. She is quite limited in what can or can not be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:51 PM

8. This is passed over as never been said. It will probably be ask again tomorrow.

It not the TPP it will be something else. I am thinking never answer this and then some do not need to find a new subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:06 PM

12. actually,she fully endorsed it last fall in her book.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:26 PM

2. She won't but there was a hint of support in her speech

 

today, and in her book, published last fall, she praised the TPP in glowing terms, strongly endorsing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:31 PM

3. I agree but acknowledge that many people like me who prefer someone else will not beleve

whatever she says about it. Some of us will take whatever she says to prove 1 of 2 things: 1) She's a liar; 2) She is not a real Democrat.

So I understand her strategy in that sense but I too wish all candidates would take public positions on important issues. Then we can consider their statements seriously and give them credit while considering whether they are consistent with, or a believable evolution from, their previous actions and statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:37 PM

5. She's evolving. Which direction she's evolving is being kept secret until she's finished evolving.

 

Then she'll evolve some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 01:25 AM

29. That's evolution for you

Always a "work in progress"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:43 PM

6. Reports have already said (on NPR several weeks ago)...

1.) She is under oath not to reveal what she knows about the TPP from when she was S0S. If she comes out about specifics, she has violated her agreement.

2.) Hillary and Obama have agreed not to criticize each other (his legislative efforts and her campaign) during the primary since they were part of the same administration and it hurts them both.

3.) She has already said (and voted in the past) for SOME agreements and not for others. This one is not public or finished yet. She HAS taken a stand that she won't sign an agreement that hurts American workers, and she has said she wants currency manipulation controls (not in the current TPP).

4.) It may be irrelevant a year from now in the election since it may be a dead deal this week. Why violate number 1 and 2 above for something that isn't going to happen anyway.

There are parts of the TPP that might be good depending on who you ask. The thing DU seems to object to is too much corporate influence. As far as I can tell, all the Democratic candidates (including folks like Warren) agree on the problem of corporate influence. No matter what stand any candidate takes, it's a waste of time with both the House and Senate in GOP hands.

Hillary was the first and only candidate to come out for a path to citizenship, for salary transparency and equality for women, day care/family leave paid. She also has declared she has a litmus test for SC appointees. As far as I know, no one is pressuring the other candidates for "specifics" on those issues - all of which are more important than the yet to be negotiated TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 04:53 PM

10. Good post, it is easier to live with the truth rather than believing the cognitive dissonance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:10 PM

14. being under oath does not preclude her from asking that it be made public

 

Not that she should. In any case, she endorsed it in glowing terms, last fall, in her book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:22 PM

15. What she discussed in her book has been changing...

and even in her book, she did not discuss "specifics".

As I said. NY and NJ have tuition equity. If you were brought in by your parents from Mexico at 8 years old, and are 18 and want to go to college but you are undocumented (even though you attend and graduate from a public state HS), you can pay in state tuition.

Vermont does NOT have tuition equity. You'd have to pay international tuition at 2 or 3 times the rate. Maybe you couldn't get in at all. Hillary and Martin have addressed this. Martin changed Maryland as governor.

Bernie has not addressed this decades old and important issue for millions. He has been completely quiet (probably because his constituents in Vermont don't want tuition equity in the polls). Bernie is a typical politician when it gets to the bottom line on this issue.

If you want to ask for specifics - why get excited over one of many trade agreements that hasn't even made it to the floor? Why not ask Bernie why his states is behind - even Texas and Florida have addressed this problem, and those are the crazy GOPers!! What's up? Where is Bernie's plan? Why has he been silent?

That's one of a dozen similar issues - so going off on the "Hillary bashing" about TPP and imagining what she "thinks" and getting excited is silly with such simple and obvious issues on the table NOW!

I'll consider these threads substantive when the Bernie folks hold their candidate to the same standard the claim for others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:25 PM

16. lol. try to divert much, hon?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:37 PM

17. You continue to "bash" without substance...

and don't want to deal with the fact you support a weak candidate who has an incomplete platform.

Sorry, but going on and on about the TPP is a dead end. A year from now, it will be over one way or another.

All your time wasted on the topic is meaningless to many, many voters - most of whom have never heard of TPP, but they are women or minorities who are looking for a person who is interested in social justice in their life.

I hope you continue basing though - it drives the middle toward Hillary and keeps you busy. I know you're learning some things you didn't know about Bernie too!!

Bernie is changing his tune I see. Someone must have clued him in...maybe he reads DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #15)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:47 PM

19. I didn't know about the tuition equity issue.

That's really troublesome, and something of interest to millions.

Thanks for the information!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:44 PM

18. Please make this into an OP, Sancho.

It might help some of Bernie's supporters. If you can find any links that reference it that would be even better. I hadn't heard any of this until your post here. It makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:52 PM

21. I agree , make it into an OP, please.

And please, include the information about the tuition equity in Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 06:11 PM

23. It's not simply corporate "influence". It's Corporate World Government.


When an extra-judicial system is set up that is exempt from appeal to the courts of any nation, and which are empowered to enforce agreements which over-ride federal, state, and local governments ability to democratically govern in areas of labor law, environmental law, financial regulation, and intellectual property law, we are indeed describing a corporate coup, rather than run-of-the-mill "corporate influence".


















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 10:54 PM

28. Sorry, I don't assume that the TPP is the key to world domination by corporations...

we've all heard the scary predictions based on leaks of some part of the agreement that is not finished yet. All trade agreements can be changed, cancelled, or replaced. The US doesn't have to live with anything that our Congress doesn't agree to pass.

Of course, President Obama doesn't describe the TPP that way. Maybe he's wrong. It's been voted down for now. The US currently has free trade agreements with 20 countries:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

Most people have never heard of any of them, much less what's in the hundreds of pages of legal stuff.

Is that really the most important question to discuss at the beginning of a primary? I realize it's become the crazy topic of today, but the TPP won't be settled by primary candidates anyway.

Asking for specifics on the TPP is like asking for details in your 80 page mortgage loan contract on your house. Everyone signs it and makes the payments, but nobody really wants to spend a month or two going over every line of gobbledie gook!

If you don't trust Obama, then you should call your current representatives and President and have them vote it down. None of the current Presidential candidates will likely get a chance to sign or veto it. As such, it's easy to say, "I'm for it." or "I'm against it." even if most don't know what it says. After all, it has become a political issue.

Personally, I think we need to get 20 million people a path to citizenship, get equal pay for women, and appoint some different Supreme Court justices. Why not ask all candidates what their specific plans are for those topics?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #28)

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 12:34 PM

31. Agree with your last paragraph (and would rate Supreme Court appointments



...as probably the biggest single issue of the 2016 election.)

But the evolution of "trade agreements", from agreements which concerned the mutual lowering of tariffs and duties (for which a "fast track", no amendment, up-or-down vote may have been appropriate) into a process in which multiple spheres of government regulation (environmental, financial regulation, labor law, intellectual property law, health and safety, even food labeling) by federal, state, and local governmental entities, are over-ridden, and enforced by extra-judicial tribunals whose decisions are exempt from appeal to local, state, and federal courts, is a perilous development for democratic, constitutional governance.

And with the final fate of Fast Track undetermined and up for grabs, this is an issue in which a public stand by Hillary Clinton opposing Fast Track could be both an immediate service to democratic governance, and an indicator of how she would govern.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:48 PM

20. She making a plan to make a plan to announce her position on it...

... once it is over and done with and it is meaningless to say something.

Now, quit asking, what are you some kind of Hillary Hater?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 05:53 PM

22. I can only assume, based on your post that you

are holding your ears and shouting BLA BLA BLA so you do not hear what Clinton's position is on the subject....or you are regurgitating rw...er leftwing...er "America rising" talking points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Evergreen Emerald (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 11:53 AM

30. No

 

I want to hear her answer, but I won't accept silence or anything half-assed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 07:10 PM

25. As I see it, she can say as little as possible and possibly tick off some supporters,

or she can take a definite position one way or the other and DEFINITELY tick off some supporters.

She's probably playing it the only way she can, for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reter (Original post)

Sat Jun 13, 2015, 07:12 PM

26. In her book she supported it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread