2016 Postmortem

djean111

(14,255 posts)

28. No. It cannot. The GOP and some DINOs provided Obama with the Fast Track that he

Thu Oct 8, 2015, 10:31 AM

Oct 2015

so desperately wanted. Not one word can be changed. Nothing can be added, nothing can be deleted.
Congress has to vote Yes or No on its entirety.

This is why we are seeing things like oh, we will save the rhinos! with protections - because - don't want to pass the TPP because of the more powerful corprate courts, or the restrictions on cheaper generics? Think of the poor rhinos!!!!!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The difference between principled opposition to the TPP vs. opposing this particular deal today [View all] Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 OP

What I find truly amazing is that, evidently, Hillary's "stance" on the TPP was supposed djean111 Oct 2015 #1

I think a lot of her stances are Blus4u Oct 2015 #22

Clinton declared before Sanders. aidbo Oct 2015 #39

It's all political calculation azmom Oct 2015 #51

True kenfrequed Oct 2015 #2

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #3

Remind me please, what "labor experts" were involved in creating this treaty? Scuba Oct 2015 #6

Also, who were the "environmental experts"? Divernan Oct 2015 #30

Barack? Is that you? pipoman Oct 2015 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #10

I expect corpratist bullshit on Discussionist.... pipoman Oct 2015 #11

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #13

Maybe, but at what cost? zalinda Oct 2015 #40

They used to have to have MORE consensus with a 2/3rds vote to pass TREATIES, NOT "agreements"... cascadiance Oct 2015 #47

Secretly negotiated Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #14

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #15

blogged the entire process? Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #17

And our foreign trade also fuels a large percentage of our huge, out-of-control trade deficit. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #24

Thank you for the mealy-mouthed conservative talking points. Maedhros Oct 2015 #41

We are not allowed to see the Drafts fasttense Oct 2015 #42

It's a bit late, isn't it, after YEARS of denying the American people the right to see what these sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #46

What's the 4th word on page 37 of the not-secret agreement? DisgustipatedinCA Oct 2015 #49

excellent explanation. restorefreedom Oct 2015 #4

Principled means knowing enough about TPP to make an informed judgement. DanTex Oct 2015 #5

She advocated for it repeatedly over the years. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #27

There is no "it." She advocated for a fair trade deal with the Pacific Rim, which included DanTex Oct 2015 #35

She talked frequently and specifically about the TPP JDPriestly Oct 2015 #36

Yes. She did advocate for this treaty which from the get-go was planned to have the trade JDPriestly Oct 2015 #64

She expressed her concerns very early in the year: Metric System Oct 2015 #8

ISDS Eric J in MN Oct 2015 #21

This flipflop should end her candidacy pipoman Oct 2015 #9

Her frequent flip-flops on major issues makes it very unlikely that she can prevail in the general JDPriestly Oct 2015 #29

I agree. Stupid move for her to make. azmom Oct 2015 #52

triangulating in the wind nt LWolf Oct 2015 #12

To oppose a trade agreement because it is a trade agreement is superficial opposition. Evergreen Emerald Oct 2015 #16

TPP is not a trade agreement. It is a corporate rights agreement. Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #18

The agreement can be amended with protections added. Evergreen Emerald Oct 2015 #19

Would you provide me with the content of the agreement? You seem to know a lot about it. Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #20

Ditto to that! SoapBox Oct 2015 #25

No. It cannot. The GOP and some DINOs provided Obama with the Fast Track that he djean111 Oct 2015 #28

No amendments allowed! The whole purpose of Fast Track was to avoid amendments. Divernan Oct 2015 #31

We need trade, but we need also to be able to say no or impose specific import taxes on JDPriestly Oct 2015 #32

We need to trade. We also need to retain and protect our right to refuse to trade with JDPriestly Oct 2015 #38

Ah, fair trade. How lovely it would be. raouldukelives Oct 2015 #43

Thanks. Your comment is excellent. So true. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #62

Indeed. I often think of self-fulfilling prophecies. raouldukelives Oct 2015 #65

No....These "free trade" packages suck on principle Armstead Oct 2015 #44

Or maybe she was very REASONABLY waiting to see if the document pnwmom Oct 2015 #23

The document that hasn't been released yet? jeff47 Oct 2015 #26

Presumably she has more connections than we do. pnwmom Oct 2015 #33

So someone in the Obama administration leaked a classified document to her? jeff47 Oct 2015 #37

Whoa. This right here. Cheese Sandwich Oct 2015 #50

She is a former SoS, probably with security clearance. Wouldn't Obama himself pnwmom Oct 2015 #54

Security clearances end when you no longer have a job that requires one. jeff47 Oct 2015 #55

Then she's being leaked to on the same basis that Paul Krugman is being leaked to. pnwmom Oct 2015 #56

No, Krugman has repeatedly said he is going off what has been made public. You are claiming jeff47 Oct 2015 #57

Krugman says that he's been hearing new details, so presumably she has, too. pnwmom Oct 2015 #58

He shows where he has been "hearing" them, and it's public sources. (nt) jeff47 Oct 2015 #60

There is a video posted on DU that features her talking about the TPP many times over the JDPriestly Oct 2015 #34

Many don't really, they have emotional attachment to a personal narrative and/or are sold on a brand TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #45

Very true. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #61

HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #48

Can she ever choose the correct position the first time? EEO Oct 2015 #53

She is all for it, but the wind is against it. mhatrw Oct 2015 #59

Easy... votes. Fearless Oct 2015 #63