General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Can't Waffle on Trade Forever
May 13, 2015 12:59 PM EDT
By Albert R. Hunt
To paraphrase Joe Louis, Hillary Clinton can run but she can't hide from the great trade debate that pits President Barack Obama and a handful of free-trade Democrats against Senator Elizabeth Warren and most of the party in Congress.
Topic A is the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership, a huge trade deal that would bind the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim countries.
As the formidable front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton has raised a few critical questions about TPP, but avoided any specific stance.
The conventional wisdom is that she'll oppose any trade pact to stay in sync with the vast majority of Democrats. But in an interview Tuesday on the Charlie Rose television program, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, formerly a top Chicago business executive and major player in Democratic politics, predicted Clinton ultimately would support the deal.
Emphasizing that TPP is "good for jobs" -- which its critics dispute -- Pritzker said "that's something that I know Hillary, in the end, will come to recognize." She added that the deal is important "to our presence in Asia," noting that "Secretary of State Clinton was part of the Obama administration's rebalance to Asia."
more...
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-13/hillary-can-t-waffle-on-trade-forever
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)when she is not in office. Sorry Sanders supporters she is not taking the bait.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)repeated daily on DU. Sad, but true.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Pro Tip: they could just go look at her voting record on the issue.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She supports promoting trade and multinational corporations running the show over sovereign goverments (they are so unreliable).
"Economic Statecraft" = it's how the Secretary of State makes other nations safe for people like the Koch Brothers.
She warns against "state capitalism", says private boards and investors offer more transparency and accountability:
"Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises... ...often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors."
And finally, the resurgence of state capitalism, a challenge at once economic and strategic. Now, state-owned or state-supported enterprises are not necessarily problematic in all cases. But they do often lack the transparency and accountability that come with private boards and investors. And then, diplomatic challenges arise when states abuse their economic advantage to bully their neighbors or box out competitors, like when we see countries cut off gas flows in the middle of winter over a political disagreement. So, the State Department, working with seven other U.S. Government agencies, launched a comprehensive study on state capitalism. And in the coming weeks, we should see a final report with detailed recommendations for how we engage on the challenges posed.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200664.htm
Check it out at the 25:54 mark in this recording:
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL! Way to make it obvious. That's exactly how the right wing does this shit.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Pretty comical, I guess the video clip of her position will just have to speak for itself.
Hillary Clinton spent her time as SOS very well, helping Chevron bully foreign governments into going against the will of the people.
She'll do more of that if we let her step foot in the white house.
Can you prove she is? Of course not. Just silly bullshit, rightwing talking points.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)In addition to lowering tariffs, the agreement also includes improvements on intellectual property protection and enforcement, fair labor practices, environmental protection, regulatory due process, Clinton said. Thats also true of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a new far-reaching regional trade agreement that will bring together at least 11 economies, developed and developing alike, into a single Pacific trading community.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillarys-trade-dilemma-116278.html#ixzz3a2r8UN69
Clinton supported most favored nation trade status despite concerns about Chinas human rights record. We have to use our our moral and material strengths in ways that serve our evolving interests, she said. We have to ask ourselves what hope does the global market hold for the tens of millions of victims of child labor, or for the 100 million street children without homes or families whom Ive seen everywhere from Brazil to Mongolia who are being left to fend for themselves.
Source: Dean Murphy, NY Times , Oct 20, 2000
Voted YES on free trade with Oman: Reference: United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement; Bill S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006
Voted YES on free trade with Chile: Reference: US-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill S.1416/HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-319 on Jul 31, 2003
Voted YES on free trade with Singapore: Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Bill S.1417/HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-318 on Jul 31, 2003
[font size=10] And, took Koch Brothers Money!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You think eliminating or reducing tariffs with Chile, Oman and Singapore are going to hurt jobs here? LOL! Why did you vote for Obama then? He voted the same way. He also voted against CAFTA just like HRC.
And you're upset that the Koch brothers gave $3500 bucks to Clinton 9 years ago? They gave to lots of Dems back then. Even more to Obama. Were they supposed to have a crystal ball and know that the Koch brothers were going to up it to a billion in dark money to buy off the GOP 8 years later?
The puretopians just crack me up.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press
It has been a month, and the candidate has answered just 13 reporter questions (at least that we've been able to find, building on the work of National Journal). And you can quibble about whether some of the answers were really answers.
1 "You lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What's your strategy?" Welker asked.
Clinton's reply, as she walked toward an open van door: "I'm having a great time. Can't look forward any more than I am."
Campaign finance plan:
A pair of Washington Post reporters spotted her outside of an unannounced event and asked about campaign finance reform. The answers weren't substantive.
According to the Post, she said "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/13/406250488/the-13-questions-hillary-clinton-has-answered-from-the-press
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I love that she is giving them the finger. Makes me support her all the more.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm sure she appreciates all your support.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You got that from the World Nut Daily.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/hillary-we-have-a-plan-for-my-plan/
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)World Nut Daily, you so funny!
The 13 Questions Hillary Clinton Has Answered From The Press
1. Strategy in Iowa
"You lost Iowa in 2008. How do you win this time? What's your strategy?" Welker asked.
Clinton's reply, as she walked toward an open van door: "I'm having a great time. Can't look forward any more than I am."
7.-8. Campaign finance plan
A pair of Washington Post reporters spotted her outside an unannounced event and asked about campaign finance reform. The answers weren't substantive.
According to the Post, she said, "We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan."
More RW crap from the Washington Post:
Asked about her campaign finance agenda, she said: We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan.
When The Post asked about the role of Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton super PAC trying to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help her campaign, Clinton shrugged her shoulders and said, I dont know.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-hits-the-trail-in-iowa-again/2015/04/14/a2bf68b0-e2e8-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
She's so BOLD!
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)
Post removed
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)You're very interesting, MaggieD. I didn't get anything from WND, you seemed to dig that up. I cited my source, NPR.
As for Hillary and Super Pacs:
Hillary Clinton's campaign intends to coordinate directly with a newly formed super PAC able to receive unlimited donations, according to a Washington Post report.
The Democratic presidential candidate's campaign will work in conjunction with Correct the Record, an independent rapid-response team, previously a part of super PAC American Bridge, which conducts opposition research on Republican presidential candidates and possible GOP presidential candidates. The New York Times first reported Tuesday that Correct the Record would split from its parent organization to support the Clinton campaign.
Though Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules prohibit direct coordination between super PACs and declared candidates, Correct the Record believes it will be able to coordinate with Clinton without violating campaign finance regulations.
The FEC restricts paid internet political advertisements, making them subject to campaign spending limits and disclosure requirements. However, a 2006 FEC rule exempts "public communications" -- like unpaid posts on websites or blogs -- from such regulations. The rules were initially implemented as a safeguard against regulating the free speech of bloggers and other internet communications.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-super-pac/
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That should tell you something.
Your evidence that Clinton will coordinate with a different Super Pac is this ignorant statement from another Super Pac? LOL!
So if someone said that about Bernie you would assume he is going to break the law, too? You are too funny.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Your silliness is doing nothing more than make you look a little bit desperate.
I hope that you'll be OK when Hillary loses.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)On Thu May 14, 2015, 08:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
She's prohibited from coordination with Super Pacs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6668105
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Rude, nasty personal attacks. Accuses a DUer of using a RW site, when they linked to NPR. Name calling and insulting beligerence. Nasty post, HIDE.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 14, 2015, 08:42 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: looks to me like the comment was refuted in the thread. Lord it is going to get bumpy in here.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: no personal attacks, please.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alert. Disagree with member? Challenge him. This kind of juvenile attack serves no purpose.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Troll
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "You don't know much about politics, do you?" is a rude thing to say to anyone on DU. I've seen worse things stand.... but it IS rude and that's one of the criteria for a hide. Won't be surprised if I'm out-voted, but there you are.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It was a pretty relentless and baseless accusation.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I hope that the Berkeley Daily Planet isn't viewed by jurors as a right wing source.
Consider this. In 2005 Sen. Clinton visited New Delhi, India, (far, far from our shores), where she met wealthy business leaders, venture capitalists eager for U.S. investment. A few years prior to her visit, Enron gained a foothold in Indias economy. Enron uprooted local communities, fleeced the public coffers, then pulled out of India with the profits of unregulated greed.
In a speech promoting globalization and free trade, here is what Sen. Clinton said in New Delhi: There is no way you can legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue....We are not against all outsourcing, we are not in favor of putting up fences.
The India Review, a publication of the embassy of India, commented April 1, 2005: Senator Clinton allayed apprehension in India that there would be a ban on outsourcing.
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-25/article/29569?headline=Commentary-Hillary-Clinton-Lied-About-Outsourcing-Too--By-Paul-Rockwell
Dang, the more I'm challenged to prove my assertions, the more legitimate proof emerges that makes the case that Clinton is disqualified to lead the Democratic Party.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's a reality. Not used to politicians talking to you like an adult? You want them to blow snow up your butt instead and pretend we don't live in a global economy? I guess you do.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Dontca know all Bernie has to do is wave his magic wizard wand and manufacturing will all come back?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He has said nothing, nada, zilch, about how he will address that reality. He's content to assume his supporters are dopes.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And she's not going to buck them for one nanosecond.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)There are real populists and there are pretenders.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Puretopians that want to pretend we don't live in a global economy and are happy to hear from politicians that will play to their fantasies instead of talking to them like adults that can deal with reality.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)tritsofme
(17,320 posts)It is understandable she cannot bat away the nonsense quite the way Obama has been able to do lately, but at this point she ought to at least have the president's back on TPA.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Her voting record is clear, she has commented on it several times, written about it in her book, and she doesn't have a vote on this issue.
AJH032
(1,124 posts)still_one
(91,937 posts)today some of those same democrats voted for fast tracking, implying that it satisfied all there concerns
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)From OP.
It's like a Scientology induction meeting... EST anyone ???
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)because there are some who think that it is important enough to get her in that they will overlook anything and everything.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Matt Bai
National Political Columnist
May 14, 2015
My colleagues in the media keep insisting that Hillary Clinton take a position on the proposed free-trade pact that has riven her party. Which is just ridiculous, because she made her position perfectly clear during a swing through New Hampshire last month, when she said: Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security.
Well, there you go. Were you guys just not listening?
Trade deals that help workers and make us safer check. Trade deals that crush workers and benefit terrorists thumbs down. No wonder she called her book Hard Choices.