General Discussion

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

1. So, she didn't actually address any of the specific issues like ISDS, Fast Tracking, secrecy,

Sun Jun 14, 2015, 02:27 PM

Jun 2015

country of origin labeling, etc.

Kudos to Sen. Warren for her unambiguous statement: "Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

If only Hillary Clinton had taken the opportunity to make a similar stand. But, she didn't. That means, by the time there's a final up or down vote, it will be too late to remove the offending section.

And, of course, country of origin for food has never really been a problem in modern times. Right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton Addressed TPP in Iowa Event [View all] MineralMan Jun 2015 OP

So, she didn't actually address any of the specific issues like ISDS, Fast Tracking, secrecy, leveymg Jun 2015 #1

Rep Jim Hines (D-CT) addresses some concerns here... JaneyVee Jun 2015 #4

Is Rep. Himes Hillary's official spokesman on this issue? leveymg Jun 2015 #6

Sorry, I thought you cared about the issues and... JaneyVee Jun 2015 #8

I care enought to do my own reading on issues, and haven't tried to divert this thread. leveymg Jun 2015 #12

So what do you think about Rep Hines take on it? JaneyVee Jun 2015 #15

He needs a better site. It is neither searchable nor indexed - just a long line of Q&A which leveymg Jun 2015 #17

LOL. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2015 #80

lol at Hillary fans using a former vp of goldman sachs as a go to guy for answers cali Jun 2015 #82

jim himes. formerly VP at Goldman Sachs. introduced legislation cali Jun 2015 #71

Classic revolving door. He's probably fishing for a spot at Treasury under the next Admin. leveymg Jun 2015 #79

pathetic, isn't it? this guy is being touted on DU as someone to go to on the TPP cali Jun 2015 #81

Hey Janey, I want to hear your take on cali's take on Hines in post #71. Or did the ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #88

I don't care what the banksters want and I sure as hell don't listen to them on the TPP cali Jun 2015 #83

Here is what Himes sent out to his constituents, of which I am one. When I wrote him Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #57

He is my congressman, and he will not tell me what is inaccurate in the list of objections Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #54

She said what I posted that she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #19

You know, she really didn't address TPP, she touched on the subject. leveymg Jun 2015 #36

Addressed it, mentioned it, brought it up. MineralMan Jun 2015 #38

ok. I guess we can all use a break from this stuff. leveymg Jun 2015 #43

" Addressed it, mentioned it, brought it up" -- danced around it. But didn't take a stand corkhead Jun 2015 #55

What she said was wishy-washy politispeak. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #89

Whatever you say. I just reported what she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #90

Stop being so defensive. I wasn't criticizing your comment/transcription. nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2015 #91

There's Warren again, failing to aknowledge the ISDS has been in place for decades, and has not Hoyt Jun 2015 #34

You might need to update your defense in light of the US changing it's meat labeling laws jeff47 Jun 2015 #44

Non State-to-State ISDS is new. What's new about this is that individual companies leveymg Jun 2015 #63

Been in some 2500 trade agreements since 1959. Check your beliefs., to ensure they Hoyt Jun 2015 #64

The existing ISDS goes through state-to-state mechanisms, as the US Trade Representative leveymg Jun 2015 #66

Thank you, ISDS is not new, and corporations have sued under it for decades. Hoyt Jun 2015 #67

Non state-to-state ISDS is new. That's the difference with the TPP - the new form allows leveymg Jun 2015 #68

Here's a NYT article that lays it out based upon a Wikileaks copy of the January draft TPP leveymg Jun 2015 #69

So, I guess ISDS suits BY CORPORATIONS against the USA, Canada or Mexico in the 1990s under NAFTA Hoyt Jun 2015 #70

If you state the venue of the cases, we can look that up. leveymg Jun 2015 #72

There is not a darn bit of difference. Go here and pick some cases www.italaw.com/ Hoyt Jun 2015 #74

International law and treaties is all about lots of little differences. NAFTA is a treaty between leveymg Jun 2015 #76

Exactly what is in TPP. So it is not new. Hoyt Jun 2015 #77

The NAFTA Ch 11 cases are filed between the states with companies as "Investor of another party" leveymg Jun 2015 #75

Same thing in TPP, same rules, same way of selecting arbiters, etc. Not new in TPP. Hoyt Jun 2015 #78

Here's an example of how the current state-to-state system in NAFTA requires gov't leveymg Jun 2015 #85

ISDS UNDER NAFTA, Same as under proposed TPP. Hoyt Jun 2015 #92

So does she support or oppose the TPA fast track legislation? Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #2

It doesn't matter. She has no vote leftofcool Jun 2015 #7

No I won't slam her if she opposes it Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #9

I think it matters. Hillary is the presumptive nominee and TPA will be a great benefit tritsofme Jun 2015 #11

YEs it matters a great deal. This is a specific example of the kind of decisions rurallib Jun 2015 #13

It absolutely matters. She's running for President and would get to use this bill if neverforget Jun 2015 #16

And, of course, so would a Republican President Art_from_Ark Jun 2015 #87

And at last we have the old Ann Romney "you people" slam tularetom Jun 2015 #37

It certainly doesn't matter to those that can overlook her selling the lies for IWar rhett o rick Jun 2015 #60

It matters a fuckton. Orsino Jun 2015 #94

She said only what I posted about. MineralMan Jun 2015 #20

We should not have to be mind readers Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #25

I can't help you with that. I've never met her. MineralMan Jun 2015 #26

I don't need your help, I need her help Bjorn Against Jun 2015 #31

DU rec...nt SidDithers Jun 2015 #3

K&R leftofcool Jun 2015 #5

why is it that EVERYONE can discuss specific points on this bigtree Jun 2015 #10

I'm sure she could. It's a campaign speech, and she talked about a long MineralMan Jun 2015 #21

she speaks about it like she's detqached from the issues everyone else is discussing bigtree Jun 2015 #27

I can't help you there. I posted a paraphrase of MineralMan Jun 2015 #29

as a candidate, she has absolutely nothing to gain from geek tragedy Jun 2015 #93

hmmm. cali Jun 2015 #14

I neither praised her nor criticized her in this OP. MineralMan Jun 2015 #22

She doesn't need to address TPP at all. She already has. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #18

Could be. I don't know. She spoke in Iowa at a campaign MineralMan Jun 2015 #23

Understood. Mine was a general comment, directed at pretty much everyone. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #24

Well, one poster in this thread seems to think that my OP MineralMan Jun 2015 #28

You'd think with that history she'd actually take a position on it in her campaign. jeff47 Jun 2015 #41

Here's how it seems to me: if I profess unflinching support for something both as a public official cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #50

Stances are for the little people. Important people have optics. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2015 #51

Truer words were never posted... n/t cherokeeprogressive Jun 2015 #53

Once again she said a bunch of nothing. askew Jun 2015 #30

So original basically she said nothing other than mentioning the TPP and some trade agreements Autumn Jun 2015 #32

I don't like the after the fact thinking either mvd Jun 2015 #62

Your subject line is incorrect Doctor_J Jun 2015 #33

OK. Whatever. I posted a paraphrase of what she said. MineralMan Jun 2015 #35

So... She didn't really address it, she just name dropped while serving up platitudes. Exilednight Jun 2015 #39

Yes, yes. So, I shouldn't have posted anything about it? MineralMan Jun 2015 #42

A truthful title: Hillary mentions TPP in stump speech, but offers no stance. Exilednight Jun 2015 #47

FFS! MineralMan Jun 2015 #48

No objection from me. Exilednight Jun 2015 #49

So to summarize: jeff47 Jun 2015 #40

OK. I didn't summarize. I paraphrased. MineralMan Jun 2015 #45

I didn't say you did not summarize/paraphrase. jeff47 Jun 2015 #46

I don't think she believes the trade deal is going to pass. nt sufrommich Jun 2015 #52

When you leave so much to chance on how you're perceived, when less than candid Jefferson23 Jun 2015 #56

Yesterday and this morning there has been lots of remarks about Hillary not talking about TPP, this Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #58

Clear and concise frylock Jun 2015 #59

You forgot the :sarcasm: tag. Exilednight Jun 2015 #86

MM, thanks. I hope there will be a transcript released. n/t freshwest Jun 2015 #61

Called it! joshcryer Jun 2015 #65

Every part of the Democratic Party coalition is against it except for big banks and corporations Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #73

If I were in Congress, I would only vote for a trade deal after a lot of social JDPriestly Jun 2015 #84