General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Not since LBJ [View all]cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If you stood up and said "google it" to support a point in a debate in high school, you would lose EVERY debate and probably kicked off the team too.
As I have noted, just stating some concerns about ISDS that is about the only thing I find about her "agreeing" with Warren is NOT an agreement with Warren that Fast Track should be voted down. As I have noted, if Hillary truly believes that ISDS is a problem and should not be put in to law, then she right now should come out and say that either:
1) She cannot support Fast Track which would have congress people have to vote to put ISDS in to law if they were to pass TPP at all (assuming she has something she feels good about TPP which is why she's holding back from rejecting it altogether).
or
2) She cannot support Fast Track (like Warren has said) because of too many problems that would happen were it to enable passage of TPP that she couldn't support in to law. In other words come out against solidly both against TPP and Fast Track.
If you want to be accurate in your statement, then you'd say that Hillary Clinton has expressed concern about what would happen with the ISDS provisions of TPP, in much the same fashion that Elizabeth Warren has on this issue. THAT would be an accurate statement. But you are extrapolating more than what that statement would say, and trying to make it sound like she and Warren (and Sanders for that matter) are the "same" when it comes to TPP and Fast Track, when it is very clear that in general on both of those issues, they are NOT. Now, if you can provide specifics BESIDES ISDS concerns that they agree upon, then YOU google it to find out those areas that support your depiction of them both having the same views on TPP and Fast Track. That is a fabrication in my book without proof otherwise.