Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
7. Well, this sounds like a good question for the press to ask her now then..
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 05:53 PM
Apr 2015

Don't you think?

If she's stated earlier that she doesn't want this ISDS provision put in to law, and it is still in the TPP bill that is going to be put before congress, doesn't she have a DUTY if she's standing by this earlier stance of hers to tell those in congress that she feels that they should vote down Fast Track now, since if it isn't voted down, then in order for her concern to be alleviated about a TPP bill that she might otherwise support, that they shouldn't have to deal with Fast Track restrictions when looking at the TPP bill later in order to have it removed and have a "cleaner" bill then that she might be able to support.

If she doesn't want to stop Fast Track, then she in effect is saying that her earlier statements against ISDS were MEANINGLESS and that she really doesn't want to follow through with any actions to back up her stated concerns then.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hillary Clinton Agrees Wi...»Reply #7