ED Shultz's Handing Hilary and Obama The TPP

[rsmith6621]

....back to them on an OXIDIZED silver platter on todays show.


This is why Hilary does not excite me. She is a corporate dog that shows no interest in unions and she still has Wall Streets hands in her decision making process.

Hilary will be a default candidate and my vote will be in protest. I will not be spending my Saturday afternoon campaigning in caucuses hoping for a chance to go as a Hilary delegate to the DNC National Convention like I did for the POTUS in 2012. I sure hope that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie run and stick to it until the convention. I am doing my homework on Martin O'malley trying to find something I can sell to my friends.


I sure hope being honest on the DU is still acceptable behavior. These are my honest thoughts.

[upaloopa]

1. I didn't hear Hillary talk about the TPP.

If Obama gets fast track it will be in place before Jan 20, 2017 if and when Hillary takes office. My guess you don't like her and you need reasons to support that so you pick TPP which she may have nothing to do with. It is ok to not like her but I wish you could give reasons that might enlighten us and help us make a good decision.

[polichick]

2. Bernie is awesome on this right now! (On Ed's show)

[LuvLoogie]

3. Corporate Dog?

Really?

[Hoyt]

4. Big Ed's rants about TPP are proof football helmets didn't work back when he played.

The other night he has his own invited quest on who tried to explain to Ed that another guest was right that NAFTA has a dispute resolution tribunal provision in it, like the proposed TPP.

He kept saying, he didn't believe it had the tribunals. His own guest said, "Ed she's right about that." But Ed didn't get it and went on some tangent rant about secrecy (although he acted like he knows all about it and the negative impacts he says will happen).

I don't know whether it's just former Republicans like Ed and Elizabeth Warren who think it OK to just outright lie about Obama and the TPP, or what to say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You mean this

Investor State Dispute Settlement, which you keep mischaracterizing.

By the way, I do not expect to waste a second afternoon with you. And waste it is.

Ed is mostly right on this issue, and you are completely wrong on this issue.

[Hoyt]

7. Yep. I guess you too don't think it was in NAFTA and darn near 2500 other trade agreements

including those between states of the European Union.

Well you are wrong, just like Ed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I love it how you mischaracterisze what is told to you

NAFTA was the first one where these things started to be put in. and they were seen as a direct attack of the trade authority of the WTO. Go rant with somebody who is on your pro corporatist, free trade, new liberal side.

You are wrong way wrong, but i am sure you will tell me again how NAFTA strengthened labor rights for Mexican workers and how the environment was protected.

I expect that from pro corporatists.

But you mischaracterizing things, is a tactic. I love porristas, really. But I already told you such.

[Hoyt]

10. Have the tribunals been in hundreds of trade agreements or not, including EU?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. You are cute

re-read the post you are answering to

Ed. Spelling

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. The TTP will be a disaster for middle classes

not just in the US, but in other treaty countries, Why workers are opposed to these kinds of trade treaties. Ed is mostly correct in his stance, and the goal is to sign and deliver before the general election, so it does not become an inconvenient fact. That said, it will.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. you hit the nail on the head there nadinbrzezinski. Glad to see you back.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. On a semi limited basis

this issue matters to me... at a rather personal basis as well.