2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWell with TPP released...Bernie wins this one hands down!
It was only a few short months ago when Hillary came out against it. Never mind that in her book she referenced how great TPP was over 40!!! times.
Who was out in front on this issue?
Bernie.
This is from January 2013.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)have zero concern for those living in poverty, and the billionaires might buy the election (ironic since it looks like Citizens United will help HRC) for HRC but the revolution (peaceful) has just started. The millions that have enthusiastically sided with the 99% and Sen Sanders will not become slaves willingly like the Conservatives hat choose tough leadership over freedom.
This is a class war and sooner or later we will prevail over the Oligarchy run government.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It makes me feel real sad for the party.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)because he embarassed Obama. I seriously have a problem with this kind of thinking, because it makes any arguments they put forward unreliable and untrustworthy. When a democrat supports the TPP, any arguments they make against a Republican trade issue are hypocritical. Then, it's harder for other democrats to make a case. With spying, it's even worse. If a republican supports it, it hard to argue against them.
More generally, it's harder to make a case that democrats are, in general, a better choice when big-D Democrats defend crappy policies because a democrat did them. People can rightly claim that there are no differences between the parties. Yeah, we can point out that there are differences, but on some very important matters, there aren't.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are authoritarians. They've been taught to bow down to their authoritative leaders from parents, coaches, teachers, military, and religious leaders. Never question authority, never be skeptical, never be open minded. They've learned to live in bubbles of denial. They want very badly to believe that the iron fist of the NSA/CIA is on their side. They need to believe that so badly, they will try to kill those messengers that dare to speak against their leaders. They have shown that they will give up their Constitutional freedoms for as little as a promise of security. It's a good thing that the authoritarians in the 1700's (loyalists) didn't stop our founders from fighting for our freedoms and liberties.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Embarassing Obama is barely a footnote to me. However, it seems that it is the most important thing regarding Snowden to the big-D Democrats here. They only seem to care about Democrats, not what policies said democrats are enacting. But if we support that, we're putting truth to the idea that there is no difference between the parties.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)saw a chance to continue the conservative ideology if they merely pretended to favor social justice. Especially social justice that doesn't cost them a dime. HRC for example does say she favors some, limited gains in social justice but she expects the middle class and working class to pay the price. Notice that she never talks about getting her friends in the 1% to pay their fair share.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Critically democrats are too close to republicans on some issues: free "trade" and surveilance.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Right wing strips away the ability to think critically.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)was against it, or was it, she was against it before she was for it, or, she was for it before she was for it...I give up 
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)It's a really bad thing and will be THE black mark on Obama's legacy.
Never forget.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the killing of innocent people with drones to kill suspected terrorists.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Never should have happened.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)
riversedge
(70,304 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Camp Weathervane is having a bad today. It has to be rough defending "Hillary Come Lately".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's hard to know where she stands from day to day. So the question is why would you support someone that is not clear where they stand on issues? It appears the answer is that issues are less important to other criteria. For example, a lot of people like to be on the side of power. To be on the side of the toughest kid on the block. They are willing to look the other way from bad decision and bad stands on issues.
The Republicons are tickled to death about the TPP, as are major corporations, Conservative Democrats like HRC.
There are two sides to the class war and the 1% side favors the TPP. Some Democrats choose to side with the wealthy over the unions, our vets, our seniors, and the 50 million living in poverty.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It's just hard to keep track of how she is presenting or framing her stances, which never buck the powerful interests, much as Obama's never buck the powerful interests. Punch down, kiss up.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)So, she's been wrong 45 times on the TPP. Does that argument work better for you?
Or perhaps I should point to your comment and explain how it attacks the poster, but utterly fails to refute anything.
Perhaps you're also okay with people performing paid-troll acts, so long as they benefit hillary?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251773551
Instead of attacking the poster, try addressing the topic.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There are no benefits from the TPP for regular citizens. Only negatives.
Renew Deal
(81,872 posts)This is one poll, but I've seen others.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)Honk----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)And if she wins, she'll do whatever her power circle wants her to do.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Her defenders her were praising her wisdom in not taking a position based just on leaks, but in instead waiting to see the final text. Because she then did not actually wait, she made it obvious that it was pure political expediency on her part.
I look forward to her explanation of what was so wonderful about the "gold standard" version but that the bumbling Obama administration traded away, to justify her change of position.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)I was getting steamed up listening to my podcast of the Thom Hartmann show from yesterday, listening to his criticisms of the TPP.
This is truly a disastrous agreement and benefits no one but the corporations and the rich. It will lead to a worsening of the race to the bottom, higher medication costs, a roll-back of environmental protection, etc.
In the past, I have argued about this with progressives and they say, "It has to be good -- Obama is for it!" My question always was, "If this is so good, why is it secret?" Well, we find out that the critics of this pile of crud were correct and if it is turned into law, multinational corporations are the winners.
Thom noted that under this agreement, the only one able to sue others about threats to their profits are investors. Labor unions cannot sue, governments cannot sue, etc., and the decisions are to be made by business-friendly attorneys, and there is no appeal for their decisions. (Jeez -- I wonder how they are going to decide?) Thom also points out that that in this agreement, forced labor and slavery aren't outlawed -- they are "discouraged." Same with overfishing by large groups of people -- not outlawed, just "discouraged." Patents will last a lot longer and, therefore, many more people will die than otehrwise would.
I sure echo Teddy Kennedy's plaintive question in the Senate: "When is enough enough? When does the greed stop?"
On the Thom Hartmann show yesterday, someone called up and said that those who brought about the TPP are like a group of people ruining their area, and looking for other areas to ruin. The proponents of the TPP sure have no interest at all in helping bring about peaceful and livable communities.
Go, Bernie!
senz
(11,945 posts)His instincts and judgement are accurate to an uncanny level. He would guide this nation away from the cliff we're on and return us to the path that leads to national optimism, prosperity, and well-being.
Any politician who has waffled on either of these issues is not on the side of the American people.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)TPP = Hillary's death knell.
If Unions don't need this warning about Clinton, they're fools. I guess it depends on how much Union leaders were paid for an endorsement though - bought and paid for.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Literally, from Webster, "a monetary standard under which the basic unit of currency is defined by a stated quantity of gold and which is usually characterized by the coinage and circulation of gold, unrestricted convertibility of other money into gold, and the free export and import of gold for settling of international obligations"
In common use, it means the exemplar by which others of its kind will be evaluated...and thus implied, the matrix upon which future policy will be crafted.
NAFTA begat the TPP and the TPP will be the progenitor of the new capitalism...virile, global, out, and ultimately in charge of the fate of humanity.
My gold standard has nothing to do with money. Where does agape figure in the ledger of profit?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)For some, democracy for all people and a stable biosphere is more important than gold. For others, it is whatever the going rate is.
These deals are just natural extensions of the accumulated desires of many small raging Wall St fires. When left unchecked, sometimes they can erupt into massive flares.
One thing is for sure, the more successful they are, the warmer we'll all be.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)so obviously he would be first to oppose one. He doesn't even need to see it first.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)in the last 30 years that's benefited the average American.
Trade deals suck.
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)That is not a path to prosperity.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)show me one that's benefited us.
A path to prosperity would be beneficial, no more moving crap off seas in deals which benefit someone else
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)approve of trade. That is pretty sad.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)when I want manufacturing to come back to America. How is that sad?
You know what's sad, bad trade deals who benefit corporations while workers wages have gone down through the years.
Come on man, your name is "Progressive Dog", I expect better.
Trade deals suck for the American worker!
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)even if it had, the percentage of the economy dependent on manufacturing has shrunk. It has shrunk due to automation and efficiencies of scale, not just jobs moving overseas. It is never coming back and without trade deals, we will have less to replace it.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Seriously......
Are you kidding me?
You're actually repeating a RW Libertarian talking point?
Manufacturing is dead. Did you miss the debates the last election between Obama and Romney? Jobs have been lost to companies moving overseas and on to foreign land. Who's FoxCon?
Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)you need to go back and read for understanding.
You also need to become more familiar where the RW has historically stood on trade and also where the t-party of today stands. Trump also stands with your view.
Just so you know--FoxConn is an electronic contract manufacturer based in China. They assemble iphones for Apple, and other electronics. They use automated assembly for the circuit boards, where robotic arms pick and place the components onto circuit boards which have been prepared with solder paste. The actual labor to assemble the product is a secret but estimates run from 2 to 5% of the sales price. (price of labor $1.78/hour)=7 to 17 hours.
China is one of those countries with which we do not have a TPP/NAFTA type accord.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Spread the Bern. 
