Hilllary's BIGGEST Super Pac contributers "Are Major Benifactors of TPP"

[FreakinDJ]

The folks with the most to gain by the TPP just LOVE Hillary

Too bad most of us here are not members of the 1%

"It will force other TPP signatories to accept the United States’ excessive copyright terms of a minimum of life of the author plus 70 years, while locking the US to the same lengths so it will be harder to shorten them in the future. … And in the most recent leak of the TPP’s Intellectual Property chapter, we found an even more alarming provision on trade secrets that could be used to crackdown on journalists and whistleblowers who report on corporate wrongdoing.”






So far, Clinton’s campaign has raised $97,763,283, according to figures released on Oct. 16 by OpenSecrets, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics. Her campaign committee raised $77,471,604, while super PACs and other outside groups raised $20,291,679.

Top donors to her campaign include powerful law firms like Morgan & Morgan, which donated $277,326, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld which gave $133,756. In July, journalist Lee Fang revealed in The Intercept that Akin Gump has been hired to lobby for candidates from both major parties, including Clinton and Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush. In addition to their direct donations, Fang wrote that lobbyists like Akin Gump help drive presidential campaigns through soliciting major donations to super PACs.

Another top donor, the materials corporation Corning, Inc., which gave $209,100 to Clinton’s campaign, was criticized in 2011 by the nonpartisan group Public Campaign for spending millions on lobbying while paying no taxes between 2008 and 2010. Citizens For Tax Justice reported that Corning received $4 million in tax rebates during the same period. In 2012, Susan Ford, a top executive at Corning, testified before Congress to argue for a lower corporate tax rate, according to ThinkProgress.


http://www.mintpressnews.com/lawyers-investment-bankers-hollywood-media-among-hillary-clintons-top-donors/210769/

[cantbeserious]

1. Riddle Me This - Why Is This Citizen Not Surprised

[FreakinDJ]

13. Got that "We been had" feeling

[nc4bo]

17. I bought a ticket on the Hope and Change. I'm so naive I bought

the populist message hook, line and sinker only to watch the train take one right turn after another.

Still very proud of the first black POTUS but disappointed at the same time.

[Krytan11c]

2. Interesting

+1

[merrily]

3. That's what I call a gold standard!

[Aerows]

82. And was called a gold standard:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

5. November 15, 2012: Remarks at Techport Australia
"...we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

[merrily]

83. Indeed, although she was not totally truthful about her prior comments.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/

[Doctor_J]

4. another coincidence

I can't believe anyone would care about these little things. She's a woman!! Would you bash a male for taking these bribes?

[nc4bo]

5. No crystal ball needed to know who's got their back.

It's as plain as the ink on the paper.

A seriously flawed and compromised candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

9. So ...

... HRC has "got their back" by coming out against what they want?

That makes sense.

[nc4bo]

12. I cannot trust anything she says.

Just can't do it and since there other candidates available, I'l prefer to choose one of those.

[NanceGreggs]

18. LOL!

See my Post #11!

Here's what it's down to, folks. If Hillary says anything she's called a liar.

It got old months ago, and isn't aging well.

And BS supporters are always wondering why HRC supporters don't bother discussing "the issues" with them. Well, it's because when every response is "but she's lying", there's really no point in discussing anything, is there?

No matter. By this time next year, we'll be discussing Madam President's upcoming inauguration.

[Scuba]

45. So who do you think she'll betray - her donors or the supporters who vote for her?

My guess is after elected she'd fall in love with the TPP and anyone who brings up her former anti-TPP position would be called "naive."

[pocoloco]

28. Why is that "Gold Standard" colored brown,

and smell like horse shit??

...........just checking.

[George II]

73. Funny how that works - even being AGAINST the TPP is criticized. Unbelievable.

Sometimes I think many DUers' hero is this guy:

[NanceGreggs]

6. Hillary has come out against the TPP ...

So how does that fact square with the oft-touted idea that she offers a quid pro quo to her major donors?

Looks like the exact opposite happening here.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Hillary Clinton has come out against the TPP

. . . without giving a concrete reason why. In addition, she refuses to lobby against it.

If there is a specific reason why she opposes the TPP, I;d like to hear it.

Quite frankly, I am unconvinced that she really opposes it.

[NanceGreggs]

11. Typical responses here when it comes to HRC ...

"I am unconvinced."

"She's lying."

"She'll change her position the minute she's elected."

"She says that now, but she really doesn't mean it."

"She can't be trusted on anything."

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

[FreakinDJ]

14. She'a got over 90 Million rea$ons why she can't be trusted

[NanceGreggs]

19. Meaning? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

22. Try this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251850900

[brentspeak]

21. "She can't be trusted on anything."

That's a good summation of Hillary Clinton. Thanks for that. Very sporting of you.

[pangaia]

77. I would not say she can not be trusted on anything.

For me, it is just I do not know what I CAN trust her one.

I just follow the money...

[Jack Rabbit]

26. I didn't ask for an ennumeration of typical responses about HRC

I asked for a specific reason that you know of why Mrs. Clinton decided to oppose the TPP.

All she said is "knowing what I know about it now." That's all I know that she said.

If you don't know any more than I do, just say so.

I am jaded about Mrs. Clinton, I admit. However, I hold you in great esteem, Nance, and that's why I asked you.

[NanceGreggs]

33. I don't know her specific reasons.

And I didn't "just say so", because I didn't think I'd given the impression that I did know.

I would imagine, however, that she's having to walk that fine line between wanting to speak her own mind and NOT speak against Obama, his policies, or his decisions.

I think that's true on several issues.

Just my HO, but she's doing what every smart politician would do if faced with that dilemma: focus on the agreements, not the disagreements. She wants his former supporters, and she also wants to be her own person.

It's a tight spot to be in - but she's handling it well.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Thank you, Nance

I imagine Mrs. Clinton is walking a little different line than you do, but that is of no matter. Even if you're right, it doesn't say much about her leadership to think she is too timid to lay out a path forward. I think she's walking between two factions of the Democratic Party, trying not to offend either. It's not the wise to do, at least not in my view, but rather it is impossible. We progressives don't think the TPP is a trivial thing. Rather, we think that free trade is a critical issue of an epic moment.

Neoliberalism, the economic philosophy on which free trade is built, is unsustainable in practice. There seems to be some idea here that capitalism can exist without a middle class and that markets are self-regulating. Both propositions are complete and utter nonsense. As my late sister said, "When trucking is deregulated, the first thing to go is the brakes." We were told that deregulating the banking industry would work like magic, and so it has: Banks have magically turned into gambling dens and bankers into thieves.

I've seen enough of neoliberalism (or Reaganomics, supply-side economics, trickle-down theory or whatever you want to call it) to want to see no more of it. The fact is the income inequality has increased under every president starting with Reagan, and probably it can even be taken back to Nixon (I'll have to do more research). That is unsustainable. For me, personally, it means being a year out from my 65th birthday never thinking that my future would look as precarious as it does now. I don't want another president who will put social security on the table; it's all I've got left. And I don't appreciate crooked politicians drinking my COLA so they won't have to raise taxes on equally corrupt billionaires.

Therefore, I oppose Hillary Clinton's candidacy. She represents a continuation of an unsustainable status quo. Another four to eiqht years of that will leave us in the trash with the Soviet Union. I oppose all the Republican candidates for president. Every one of them is a clown and Mr. Trump has become a stark example of why all previous comparisons of any American politician to a Nazi were hyperbolic or just ridiculous. Moreover, all of the Republican candidates will also follow the neoliberal model, with no better result. At least Mrs. Clinton is for legal abortion, civil rights and gay marriage. That leaves Mr. O'Malley, whose candidacy founders, and Bernie Sanders, the only candidate who gives me any hope at all.

Whoever wins, I will be in the street protesting the status quo. I hope others will join me. It must be brought to an end.

[NanceGreggs]

40. You're welcome, Jack Rabbit.

" ... it doesn't say much about her leadership to think she is too timid to lay out a path forward."

Laying a path forward that doesn't call-out the sitting president is not a lack of leadership, IMHO. It is the appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

I have a problem with the phrase "we progressives don't think ___ (fill in the blank). I have seen too many BS supporters promoting the idea that The True Progressives (TM) are all in BS's camp, while only non-progressives are HRC supporters.

There are "progressives" who support each of the candidates.

Despite the cries of the BS supporters, this primary is NOT about class warfare (both candidates have supporters who are rich, poor, and everything in between). It is not about a revolution or a "movement" - it's about two candidates who have supporters from all walks of life who support them for any number of reasons.

This notion that every BS supporter and every HRC supporter fall neatly into separate categories is absurd on its face.

I keep reading on DU how Bernie appeals to Republicans/conservatives. If that is the case, how is it that only Dem "progressives" support him?

Dividing Democrats into categories meant to be at odds with each other is a RW wet dream - so why are so many BS supporters insistent that this is a reality?

[Jack Rabbit]

50. Happy Thankgsgiving, Nance

Obviously I don't agree with your take on matters. Please click here for my summation of the current situation and how we got here.

I began to self-identify as a "progressive" around the time Bill Clinton left office. At that time, the word "progressive" was widely used to describe the liberal/left wing of the Democratic Party. "Liberals" were buying into the Republican lite program the DLC was selling, which made them seem like wimps to me. I believed then and continue to believe that what this country needs is thorough purging of all things Reagan. President Clinton's welfare reform, free trade, his partnership with Wall Street and occasional sabre rattling were all too Reaganesque for my tastes. Therefore, I am a progressive; the Clintons are not. The Sanders campaign attracts disaffected progressives while the Hilllary Clinton campaign attracts people who still support the DLC model, often called the Third Way now.

I have no idea why Bernie attracts Republicans/conservatives. I know why he attracts me. I don't use conservative as a necessarily pejorative term, preferring right wing as the pejorative term to denote the main thrust of the GOP platform from 1980 to the present. Perhaps these Republicans recognize in the policies Republican insiders and Third Way a colossal failure characterized by income inequality, a shrinking middle class, political/corporate corruption and lost civil liberties and see that Bernie is eager to make necessary changes while Mrs. Clinton will continue policies brought income inequality and the curtailing of civil liberties. The candidates offered by the Republicans will simply put the policies of the last 35 years on steroids and march us all off a cliff.

Dividing Democrats into categories meant to be at odds with each other is a RW wet dream - so why are so many BS supporters insistent that this is a reality?

To me, this is a reality. It doesn't make me happy, but it is a reality. I really take it personally when a slimy corporate prostitute calls me and my fellow progressives "retards" or another White House aide mocks us for "throwing money down toilet" in an attempt to defeat an opponent of the public option in a primary, only to watch the DNC throw even more money down the toilet in a failed effort to get her re-elected to the Senate. Why do we have to watch the establishment Democrats choose bland candidates of their liking to run for Congress, only to wonder what went wrong the day after the election? Why does that happen again and again and again?

[NanceGreggs]

76. Thank you for such a fullsome response.

Here is the problem I have with labels being affixed to people on DU: they became meaningless a long time ago. They have no basis in fact, or one’s self-identification as being a certain type of Democrat. They are used now almost solely to be divisive – or, in many cases, insulting.

There is a contingent here I’ve dubbed the More Progressier Than Thou who operate on the premise that anyone who disagrees with them on any issue is therefore not a progressive. It’s become a matter of: “I am a progressive and if you don’t behave, speak, act, or believe things exactly as I do, you are not a progressive.”

No one owns the label, or the definition attached to it. And yet there are those here who operate under the delusion that they alone determine the criteria for who is a progressive and who is not – and that criteria almost invariably consists of one test, i.e. whether other posters are marching in complete lockstep with them or not.

In truth, I’d venture that most Democrats are a mixture of certain self-identifiers, e.g. one can be extremely liberal on social issues, but conservative on economic issues.

When it comes to elections and supporting candidates, I doubt that many voters look at a candidate and think, “I’m a centrist and that guy is a centrist, so I’ll vote for my own kind.” Voters take a myriad of things into consideration – as varied as can be imagined: a candidate’s political experience or private sector experience, a candidate’s age, religion, gender, a candidate’s public demeanour, their private life, eloquence in speaking, their aggressive in-your-face style or their penchant for being quiet and soft-spoken – the list is almost endless.

That being said, I find it ridiculous to read things here like “that’s why we progressives are supporting Bernie”, as though anyone supporting HRC (or O’Malley) is, by virtue of who they support, forever pigeon-holed as being not a progressive.

There are progressives supporting Hillary, just as there are conservatives and centrists supporting Bernie. One’s candidate-of-choice is not necessarily a determining factor of what “category” they fall into, or how they self-identify.

Quite frankly, I have seen quite a number of posters here who brag of being More Progressier Than Thou, but who, on certain issues, come off as pretty damned close to being right-wingers. But because they have labelled themselves as progressives, they brook no argument as to their tight-ass conservative views on certain topics as being anything less than the “progressive” they so desperately want to be identified as.

I have seen posters here labelled as centrists, DINOs, ConservaDems, Republican-lites, simply because they disagreed with a self-styled “progressive” – often on an issue that was too trivial to even seriously discuss. I have seen posts about how the centrists are ruining the Party, and how the Party should purge itself of “those people” who, by their failure to fall in line with the “progressive ideology” (as defined by DUers), are standing in the way of any progress whatsoever that Democrats want to see happen.

The “Big Tent” aspect of the Democratic party has always been its strength, not its failing. It means that people of sometimes diverse views can come together and gather strength from its numbers. That concept requires tolerance of those who think differently; it requires cooperation and compromise. It requires seeing things through other people’s eyes, and not merely through one’s own.

I was recently told by a DUer that he wished I would “leave the Democratic party and take all of the Clinton supporters with me”. I asked how he thought the Democrats – bereft of those of us he didn’t like – would ever get anyone elected to any office with their numbers whittled down to only those whose opinions he approved of.

All of this to say that dismissing differing opinions as being “centrist, middle-of-the road, not left enough, not Progressier Than Thou” enough is not only against everything the Party stands for, it is downright juvenile.

I am an extremely liberal progressive (by the true definition of the word, not by the DU definition that is constantly being bandied about here), and I find it highly amusing that anyone here thinks they can label me, or anyone else on this site, as being what they have determined me to be based on which candidate I choose to support because it differs from theirs.

Pigeon-holing Democrats is divisive and counter-productive. And I suspect that those who constantly do so are not even Democrats – never have been, never will be. Divide-and-conquer is what one does to one’s political enemies, not to one’s political allies.

In closing, I want to wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving. Being as I live in Toronto, we celebrated the holiday back in October. Canada is a wonderful place to live – but these Canucks have it ass-backwards when it comes to Turkey Day and the appropriate time to celebrate it.

--- Nance

[Jack Rabbit]

87. We will agree to disagree

My problem with leaving terms open ended is that they quickly become meaningless, although your points about them never being completely accurate is well taken.

Thank you for the discussion.

Toronto sounds like quite a place . . .

[LovingA2andMI]

35. She is lying...

It's called saying whatever has to be said to "get elected", then when one get into office --- do otherwise.

#HaveBerniesBack #VoteforBernie.... He's Real, and not brought, purchased and paid for.

[senz]

84. Precisely. This is the Primary.

[Scuba]

46. If elected, she would have to betray somebody.

Bet it's not Jamie or Lloyd.

[Plucketeer]

74. That's really the HEART of it

We can dress it up a thousand different ways, but it STILL comes down to WHO she'll be beholden to. It's SO simple and it's a script we've seen performed so many times that we could tell the whole story in our sleep. Those BIG name donors with the generous checks DO NOT have my or your interests at heart - unless, of course - you're holding some of their stocks. But even that angle buys you DAMNED little from the executive office.

Not that I think I'm really worthy of special attention - from the White House on down. But the odoriferous truth of it is, NONE of them give a shit what I think or how I get along. Ande that goes for ALL of us here in the trenches.

[stupidicus]

53. the dodge that like a leper

and generally switch to meaningless dodges in an effort to convince themselves they answered it or somesuch bs

[JDPriestly]

27. No. She has only said she does not like the labor provisions.

She is not against the worst parts of the TPP -- the arbitration court that allows corporations to sue the taxpayers in democratic countries or the trademark and patent provisions that extend the rights of trademark and patent holders for many years or the weak environmental provisions.

She is not really against the TPP. She is just tricky about the TPP. Says something that leaves her lots of room to change and be for it.

Watch her on this. She is shifty when it comes to trade, the TPP and H1-B visas among many other things. Shifty and shady. A lot of people don't understand that she is hedging her bets on the TPP.

Now Bernie? He says it loud and clear and leaves no doubt. He opposes the TPP. No compromises on that one.

Feel the Bern!

[Jack Rabbit]

59. Thank you, Ma'am

Do you have a link for that? I hadn't seen where she was at all specific.

Power to the People.

[ibegurpard]

42. I expect she'll evolve

[FreakinDJ]

51. and you honestly think .....

[Logical]

85. For it before against it mode! Nt

[NanceGreggs]

86. I take it you are unfamiliar with ...

... the negotiation of international trade agreements.

The last draft that Hillary saw of the TPP was years ago. Negotiations have been ongoing, which means the last draft that HRC saw was not the draft that became the final document.

What changes did you think were made since HRC was last involved - deciding whether to go with the Oxford comma or not?

[Thinkingabout]

7. Again no substance, she comes out against TPP, if she had so many backers from TPP benefactors

she would have stayed behind TPP, doesn't make much sense does it?

Now if she reacted as Sanders to NRA she would still be backing TPP, twenty five years later.

[JDPriestly]

29. Please. Let's be truthful here.

Sanders is not backing the NRA. He has a D- rating from the NRA.

He does not agree with making gun manufacturers strictly liable for damage that third parties inflict with guns the third parties buy.

No matter how much we may dislike a candidate, we should not misrepresent the candidates' stances on things. That's really unfair and pretty low. Bernie Sanders is not pro-NRA. He does not support the NRA.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Five times he has voted against the Brady Bill, he has a D rating,

It should be a F, should have always been a F, on the gun manufactures getting immunity, why just the gun manufactures, why not all the other industries?

Now be honest, he backs the NRA, at a time when sensible guns should be on the books Congressional members does not have the guts to stand up against the NRA and say enough is enough, stop the senseless killing.

[ish of the hammer]

52. your comments, on this thread, is called

deflection, since the diary is about the TPP. and with a strawman, but have a nice thanksgiving anyway.

[ejbr]

54. He may have a D

instead of an F, but if what we are reading is true, Hillary has an A with the TPP crowd. I'll take his D to her A.

[Thinkingabout]

58. I would like to see where the TPP has a rating system.

[ejbr]

60. Follow the money n/t

[Thinkingabout]

61. Whose money, Bernie's.

[ejbr]

62. Being purposefully obtuse is a nice deflectio. Kudos

[Thinkingabout]

63. I would like to know, the Clintons reports their money, not so

Sure about Sanders.

[ejbr]

64. Are you sure?

http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

[Thinkingabout]

67. Blogger without any evidence except his opinion. This does not exempt

Sanders and his money trail.

[ejbr]

70. And your

evidence that it is his opinion is YOUR opinion. How convenient

[Thinkingabout]

71. No, wrong, his opinion is his, I have my own opinion.

In fact Sanders net worth went from $350,000 to $800,000 in the past year also so looks like some shaky finances for Sanders.

[ejbr]

72. Yes

Harpers would publish this type of "opinion". We'll wait for someone other an anonymous internet poster before judging Bernie's finances. Thanks for playing.

[Thinkingabout]

79. He post he is a blogger.

[Aerows]

81. You are telling untruths, Thinkingabout

You will not annoy me to the point where I get a post hidden, which is clearly your goal, but I will say that you are laying out a big patch of fake cabbage.

Keep going. Sooner or later someone will tell you how the cow ate the cabbage.

[jalan48]

8. Nah-the Clinton's wouldn't benefit from their connections would they?

[Jackilope]

15. Wall St. and TPP have a Win / Win with either GOP or Dem. if Clinton is nominee.

[FreakinDJ]

23. Don't let all the working class citizens losing their jobs bother you

[Jackilope]

24. it bothers me plenty. It's why I contribute and want Sanders.

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[gordyfl]

20. Hillary Not Really Against TPP

Hillary is not really against TPP.

Hillary's explanation for why she's coming out against the TPP now — after years of supporting it — makes no sense.

During her time as secretary of state Clinton was a strong supporter of the TPP.

Now she sees things differently citing that it has provisions that favor big drug companies over patients.

These are totally plausible arguments for opposing the TPP, but they make no sense as reasons for Clinton to change her mind about the treaty.

The final version of the TPP wound up being less friendly to big drug companies than the version US negotiators proposed.

If Clinton was concerned about the TPP being too friendly to big drug companies, the final version should have made her more, not less, comfortable, than the "gold standard" version she once praised.


http://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop

[JDPriestly]

30. Right!

[Art_from_Ark]

39. Her "opposition" to it was very mealy-mouthed

Saying "With what I know today, I would not be in favor of it" does not equal "I am against it", it just gives her a way out when the coast is clear.

[raouldukelives]

49. Ding! nt

[Fuddnik]

25. I'll remember that when I see all these Morgan and Morgan comercials on Florida TV.

They're big with Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz too.

[Aerows]

31. Fire is hot

the sky is blue and anybody that didn't know this purposefully turned a blind eye to it.

[gordyfl]

36. She'll Say Anything

Hillary will say just about anything:

In her Wednesday PBS interview, Clinton said she was "worried that the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits, and patients and consumers fewer."

[Android3.14]

78. This is why I say that informed and/or ethical voters support Bernie or O'Malley

Clinton is damaged goods.

[ucrdem]

32. Plumbers/Pipefitters Union (#3) is a major TPP benefactor?

Barbara Lee Family Foundation? (#14)

Who are you trying to kid?

[FreakinDJ]

48. Saban Capitol Group - who are you trying to kid

[AzDar]

34. K & R

[Segami]

37. Kick!

[Betty Karlson]

41. That's another chill down my spine.

Just when I was hoping for a day without bad news, this fact insists on being revealed.

Why do you have to point out that she is bought and paid for on an issue where her "changed view" was not at all convincingly sold to the public, and might shift back to gold standards any day?

[Scuba]

44. Yeah, but she's against it until they fix all the bad parts ...

... or add a comma in there somewhere, or something.

[LWolf]

47. Not a surprise. nt

[Left Coast2020]

55. But Hillary Suporters are really not that concerned about jobs...

...going overseas. And certainly wages are not important to them. Good grief, they would settle for only $12 and hour because it's Hillary is pushing for it. That's all that matters. Maybe they think $15 an hour is a horrible virus of some kind. I don't get it. And if a media corporation (Comcast) wants to limit it's subscribers right to post what they want online--violating their First Amendment rights, well, that's not important either. Being charged extra for the AMOUNT of time you're online or limiting what content you see is not something Hillary supporters have time for. And last but not least are the infamous arbitration courts who will settle your consumer complaint ruling for the corporation that ripped you off. Now why would these courts rule for the corporation? You don't suppose it would have something to do with the corporation giving the courts judges $$$ do you?

Naww.

[FreakinDJ]

56. Haven't seen you around here for a long time

[Live and Learn]

57. K&R nt

[Nitram]

65. Shouldn't the OP say that these companies are the beneficiaries of the TTP?

Are you trying to suggest that these companies are benefactors of Clinton's campaign? Or maybe they are the Berniefactors of the TPP?

[TheFarseer]

66. but but but she said she's against it now.

Surely she's not just saying that. Surely she won't "change her mind" because some tiny detail changes and makes it all Ok after she wins the nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

68. Of course they are. Did you have any doubt?

[snot]

69. don't they mean, major beneficiaries?

Sorry; but things are confusing enough already . . .

[LS_Editor]

75. Shocking. Oh, wait... I meant not shocking. She helped negotiate TPP

And what a great thing it will be - for the corporations. The vast majority of Americans are going to get screwed, and here is one example of how.

TPP to Protect American Freedom to Not Afford Medicine

WASHINGTON (The Nil Admirari) - Earlier today, President Obama announced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - a massive multinational trade deal the president intends to sign - will protect the freedom of all Americans to not afford life-saving medicines. Instead, TPP will allow pharmaceutical companies to make more blood money by letting them keep longer patents on their drugs, and almost indefinitely prevent critical, far more affordable generic drugs from entering the American market.

+

"That's right, the United States can be sued and taken to a foreign tribunal run by corporate lawyers solely because American law limits the blood money corporations are allowed to extort from Americans," declared Obama.

[Thespian2]

80. Huge K & R !!!