General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow progressives are putting Hillary Clinton in a tough spot on trade (again)
Attention, Bernie Sanders supporters: Hillary Clinton wants you to know she does NOT support President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Not now, not ever.
"My message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this. I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," she said in an economic speech outside Detroit on Thursday. "I'll oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."
That's about as clear as it gets. Clinton was trying to convince progressives who have been skeptical of her stance on trade that she is, indeed, on their side. And it seemed to have worked. Mostly.
<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/14/how-progressives-are-putting-hillary-clinton-in-a-tough-spot-on-trade-again/
NO LAME DUCK SESSION VOTE ON THE TPP.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stonecutter357
(12,693 posts)
rofl: : like the progressives AT JPR?cali
(114,904 posts)Do inform yourself beyond rah rah.
And as a matter of fact, it was the hate and CT stuff over at JPR that turned me off and left me open to arguments to vote for HRC.
But I see a lot of the ugly I saw over there reflected... yeah.
I reject it wherever it comes from, and I see a lot of it right.....
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)Rules don't apply to everyone, sadly.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)very clearly, Cali: The over 90% of those who switched to Hillary happily after having consistently backed Sanders in the primary are unhappy with her. Not hardly. It's the less than 10% who have a problem with...well, everything.
Another peculiar misconception you should not be trying to spread is that Hillary has unequivocally said she will not join Canada and Australia and the other 9 nations expected to ratify the TPP. She said, "My message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this. I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership." Please re-read. That's a conditional statement.
Unfortunately, people who are against all trade agreements are under the misconception that that is a sophisticated position and are typically misinformed about their many important benefits, including among other things avoiding wars, and we know how terribly important that is to the peace-loving <10%. Way after the wages and jobs issues the populist resentment's not unreasably focused on. But no real wages and jobs problem, there should be no resentment. Right?
Cary
(11,746 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Where some important changes would have to be made in order for her to sign it. Not only that, she would have to publicly show the changes she is fighting for once elected. This is how you corner a politician.
That's if it isn't passed before then.
Bernie supporters overall are on board with Clinton. Clinton has said similar things in the past. Most of us are Sanders supporters as well.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't see how a lame duck vote even happens. Ryan says no. McConnell says no. So do the vast majority of those in Congress, at this point in time. Now that may change after the election. Who knows?
Weaseling is a political art practiced by most in the the arena.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They see the economic positives and want credit for it. Regardless, their opposition is opposition. Reasons matter little in the short term.
I predict it sails through if Clinton wins by large margins. That in itself could be a major negative as it's clear additional protections need to be put in place equaling the playing field with respect to member states and I think we really need to look at the governing bodies.
cali
(114,904 posts)and Environment, if substantive changes aren't made regarding enforcement of provisions re labor, environment, and if the ISDA process remains so tilted, President Clinton will not be off to a good start with a large block of liberals- including many unions.
These are enormous changes at the last moment- to quote the name of a wonderful book of short stories by the late Grace Paley.
OnDoutside
(19,948 posts)agreed to. It would kill her Presidency if some weasel words were used to get out of those Platform agreements. It would do lasting damage to her Presidency, but over the medium and longer term to the Democratic Party.
still_one
(92,061 posts)headline to convey doubt about her TPP position, when within that article it clearly points out her position:
"My message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this. I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," she said in an economic speech outside Detroit on Thursday. "I'll oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election and I'll oppose it as president."
If the Washington Post actually presented an article about Clinton, that just reported her position without painting innuendos which try to convey negative dispersions, that be would news.
It seems the Washington Post's cynicism regarding Hillary, isn't necessarily the view of millennials:
"Poll: Clinton holds large lead among millennials
.......
Clinton is favored by 56 percent of voters under the age of 35, while Trump is backed by only 20 percent, according to the survey of millennials.
In a four-way matchup including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Clinton gets 50 percent of the vote from those under 35 and Trump receives only 18 percent. Johnson is favored by 11 percent and Stein by 4 percent. Another 18 percent say they won't vote or don't know whom they will vote for."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141550546
Angel Martin
(942 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)constantly being ridiculed with sarcastic innuendo
It is damn if you do and damn if you don't
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)More and more lately, I'm hearing about "progressives" who basically oppose ANY trade deal. What is the reasoning behind that? Seems to me we WANT trade deals... we just want deals that will preserve environmental and labor standards and not better facilitate international outsourcing, right?
think
(11,641 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 15, 2016, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)
written by the corporations.
https://www.thenation.com/article/tpp-prioritizes-rights-of-corporations-over-workers-the-environment-and-democracy/
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP/Ten-Critical-Problems-with-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I want to hear what they want the deals to include. If TPP is unacceptable, tell me what is.
In my experience, many people who oppose TPP can cite no specific objection. We need to get specific.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Along with the World Bank and the IMF, the International Trade Organization (ITO) formed the centrepiece of new kind of international organization in the late 40s. At the time, what was particularly novel about the Havana Charter was that it was not simply or mainly a trade organization like the WTO, its latter day descendent. At its core, the countries of the world rejected the idea that it was possible to maintain a firewall between trade, development, employment standards and domestic policy. Its most distinctive feature was the integration of an ambitious and successful program to reduce traditional trade barriers, with a wide-angled agreement that addressed investment, employment standards, development, business monopolies and the like. It pioneered the idea that trade disputes had to be settled by consultation and mediation rather than with legal clout. Further it established an institutional linkage between trade and labour standards that would effect a major advance in global governance. Finally it embedded the full employment obligation, along with "a commitment to free markets" as the cornerstone of multilateralism.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2063/
FDR inherited isolationism and 'America First' mentality. (Trump is not much different from Herbert Hoover in many ways.) He changed policy to one of internationalism and spreading peace and prosperity globally through international cooperation and multilateral organizations like the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO and a host of others.
It seems to me that the 'FDR era' of internationalism is coming to a close - if the door has not been shut already. Conservatives seem to want out of all of our treaties and agreements, in order to enhance our national sovereignty and to get out of the liberal goals of these agreements. On the left, proposed agreements are either 'not enforceable enough' - just pretty words but no effective enforcement - or 'too enforceable' - binding arbitration or other mechanisms that violate our national sovereignty.
FDR warned not to let perfectionism get in the way of international cooperation, but in modern times no international agreement is 'perfect' enough to satisfy anyone it seems. Trump is leading the way away from FDR's internationalism and back to Herbert Hoover's isolationism but the Donald has plenty of company of all political perspectives.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... but it seems to me that many oppose trade deals as a concept, rather than specific elements. I understand the suspicion, but we need to get past that and make some good deals, or we will be worse off.
pampango
(24,692 posts)not go far with many on the left (a big change since the days of FDR and Truman) or essentially everyone on the right (which killed it back in the 1940's and has not changed much in the past 70 years).
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)with respect to how they can orient to the issue over time.
No doubt, HRC (like all politicians) is being clear about her opposition without being specific about why she is in opposition. Few of the American electorate are dim-witted enough to think this is a permanent position never subject to a future shift. If something changes (and you can bet circumstance will produce -some- degree of variability) she (and all other politicians) has plenty of room to change.
I'd feel better about all these politicians' opposition to TPP if it's objectionable parts were named. But that's also problematic (sensu problem generating).
We are talking about political realities, and if the objectionable parts were named, the very naming of its bad things would become subject to much criticism and debate between opposing candidates. People undoubtedly -will- object to different things, probably enough to generate a rough spot which is unwanted prior to the smooth slide to what promises to be a landslide rejection of the republican candidate.
The other thing that follows from naming problems is that those parts would be subject to re-writing and then the whole package would be open for reconsideration.
No one wants to do that in the run up to the election, because as stupid as Americans are, they really don't trust more secret negotiations with corporate representative, more references to language unshared with the public and prolonged life-support for the package. The stupid American electorate actually seems to prefer the option in which the TPP dies and decomposes. Talking about change/fixes now will get the American electorates hackles up. Not good before the election.
Even less popular is the notion that "It can be changed/fixed later" few in the electorate seem happy about how that promise has worked out with other free-trade bills.
Politicians, and HRC is one, would rather keep the details of their position on TPP on the Q.T., showing empathy to the electorates concerns without doing anything that removes those degrees of freedom
Squinch
(50,911 posts)That is neither tough nor a spot.
What is this constant need to take credit for everything that she does, and that she would do either with or without those who you deem "progressive?"
still_one
(92,061 posts)night, and if Hillary said night, her critics would say she meant day.
She has made her views known on being against the TPP for months now, and yet some of her so-called progressive critics don't like it, because it doesn't fit into their preconceived view of Hillary with every negative connotation that has been hurled at her.
If a person wants to criticize Hillary on the issues, then criticize her on where you disagree with her based on what she is saying, not on some hypothetical assumption that "she doesn't really mean what she says"
This constant sniping toward Hillary based on the assumption that she is not being honest is really getting dull, repetitive, and tedious.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I mean, the number of people on this site who keep insisting she supports the TPP when she has said she doesn't, is staggering.
Squinch
(50,911 posts)warriors who talk as if they are holding the reins to Hillary's actions, forcing a reluctant Hillary into action that she otherwise wouldn't take.
The fact is that she was fighting for the vast majority of these issues long before these people ever thought about them, and they couldn't influence their way out of a paper bag.
It's completely ridiculous. It's just more of that weird delusion that everything must revolve around them.
