In "Hard Choices", HRC ENDORSED the TPP. So we actually do know her position

[cali]

She's just playing political games with her "reserving judgment" line. Her book was written after she left the State Department. She should have the guts to come out with her position, instead of pretending that she's reserving judgment.

I'm interested in hearing how she really is reserving judgment and she's evolving or whatever the defense/excuse is.

<snip>

She argued for TPP as secretary of state and in her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices" but has been noncommittal since. She has said on this issue only that "any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security, and we have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive."

<snip>

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-questions-for-hillary-clinton/

<snip>


Yet, previously as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."

<snip>

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

[Romeo.lima333]

1. karl rove is asking the same question

[cali]

2. whathefuckever. so are a lot of liberals

why is she pretending she hasn't made up her mind?

[Romeo.lima333]

11. why should she respond to a question that may not be an issue come election time?

[kenfrequed]

17. Uhm..

It is an issue Democratic and progressive voters care about. The only reason not to bring it up is that it will cost her either popular support or campaign funding depending upon the answer.

[Romeo.lima333]

22. i care about it too but mrs clinton cant veto or pass this bill so why give either side any ammo

besides i care more about scotus than the tpp at this point

[peacebird]

23. Because it would help voters to better understand what matters to her

Is she truly the populist her rhetoric now suggests, or is she still the DLCer?

[GoneOffShore]

53. She's never stopped being DLC.

[cali]

40. as has been written about, she is the 2nd most influential dem in the party

if she came out against it, it significantly betters the odds of it passing. Though I suppose as it works the other way around as well, I should be glad that she's obfuscating- at least she's not helping get it passed.

[Jackpine Radical]

61. You have just found a way to challenge my long-standing belief that

Osmium and iridium are the densest known elements.

[Romeo.lima333]

83. wow that is hillarious

[Mnpaul]

73. The TPA is good for 5 years

the next President will have 3 years of fast track authority in their first term. It may not be an important issue to you but it is a very important issue to those of us that work in manufacturing.

[Romeo.lima333]

84. it is important i just dont like seeing the left doing the work for the right

[Mnpaul]

85. I don't like it either

I wish the the President would stop supporting the bill that the Repubs love so much. Same goes for Bill Clinton. He loved those bad Republican bills.

[whatchamacallit]

90. Exactly, look no further than the TPP

for the ultimate example of "the left doing the work for the right".

[A Simple Game]

74. So she is powerless to sway support for or against TPP? Do we want someone so powerless as POTUS.

And do we even know when this will be finalized? Perhaps Hillary will be President by the time the process is done, and get the chance to sign this into law or turn it down. Her opinion matters and you should care what her opinion is.

[cali]

26. oh, it will be an issue- pass or not.

this one ain't going away. and how about letting voters know her position on an important issue?

btw, KKKarl almost certainly supports the tpp, so he'd actually be glad to see HRC coming out in support of it.

[arcane1]

28. It's a huge issue right now. Shouldn't candidates talk about what is happening right now?

1/20/2017 is a long ways away. They can't campaign entirely on predicting the future.

I can, however, understand why her supporters want her to ignore it. I see exactly where you're coming from.

[Exilednight]

37. Yes! I agree!! How dare fellow Dems expect her to take a position on a issue

That is being debated today so that they can make an informed and educated decision!!

the nerve of some people.

[Mnpaul]

70. Thom Hartmann stated it well today

if you refuse to answer the questions, you run the risk of looking arrogant.

[Exilednight]

72. I find arrogance to be a cover for ignorance. n/t

[Romeo.lima333]

93. the thread is about her position on the tpp not trade in general

tpp may be a done deal by the time election season starts up

[Exilednight]

95. I AGREE! Fellow Demsshould not ask where Hillary stands on TPP in discussion about trade. n/t

[Romeo.lima333]

96. im not saying they shouldnt ask im saying she shouldnt feel compelled to answer on tpp

[Exilednight]

98. I Agree!! How dare fellow Dems demand a response out of her to determine if she can make the right

Choice BEFORE something becomes law. Don't they understand that she is running for President and would NEVER have to make decisions or take policy positions before they become law?


Seriously ..... What are these people thinking?

P utrage:

[larksmaryland]

12. hc

doesn't she usually do what she believes to be popular?

[Sobax]

35. Usually

[840high]

76. Finger in the wind.

[el_bryanto]

4. Does that make it untrue?

It's possible she has changed her mind since then. Or that the TPP has been changed. But since we aren't allowed to review it I guess we aren't going to know.

Bryant

[cali]

8. It is? On what grounds would she have based changing her mind?

How would she know what changes have or haven't been made? She says clearly she's waiting to see it and reserving judgment until then.

She's not being honest and she's not being courageous about her position on the TPP.

[el_bryanto]

16. Just being candid about all the possibilities

People do change their positions; and since we haven't been able to review it (not to mention any changes) since she was last able to review it, it's possible that the text of it worsened.

I should make it clear that I don't think either of those is terribly likely; I think it's most likely as you say - when she believed it to be in her best interest to support it she supported it, and now that it's not - she'd like us all to forget about it.
Bryant

[cali]

18. OK, but what on earth would she have based changing her opinion on?

not to mention that supporting the TPA as she is, (and she knows this) quite simply, supporting the TPP.

I just don't see how it's possible that she has legitimately changed her mind, given what we know.

[Autumn]

6. So the question is invalid as to where

Hillary's stands on a trade agreement that may very well be disastrous to Americans because Rove is asking that question? Got a link or is that just an opinion of yours?

[Romeo.lima333]

15. the question may be a non-issue come election time

all youre looking for is the "GOTCHA"

[kenfrequed]

20. No!

This is far more serious than that. We actually need to NOT do trade deals like the TPP. This deal only seems concerned with more 'race to the bottom' on wages and protecting the patents and property of pharmaceutical companies and the entertainment industry.

Oh, and creating an organization that can invalidate the laws of countries or claim damages if those laws hinder trade.


Whoever gets in office should be opposed to these kind of trade deals on principal.

[upaloopa]

30. I suggest you talk to President Obama and those

who will be voting on the TPP. This gotcha doesn't work.

[kenfrequed]

38. This is an issue.

Do you imagine this will be the only trade treaty to be voted on?

I would like to assure the NEXT president does not support these sorts of treaties the way our current president does.

The question is valid.

[Autumn]

21. Link? I see a "GOTCHA" but don't see a link to Rove asking that question.

Also please explain why that question should not be asked of any Presidential candidate when it involves a trade agreement that has the potential to harm so many hard working Americans that the TPP has. Thanks in advance

[Romeo.lima333]

24. american rising+american crossroads (rove) are airing ads

they can ask but she can refuse to answer as she can neither pass or veto this bill
For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in “House of Cards.” And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.

right baits left link http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251407942

[arcane1]

34. Oh, the right is baiting the left all right.

Hillary will lose points if she honestly expresses her TPP views, so the neoliberal conserva-dem tactic is to ignore the topic as long as possible. Maybe even call it irrelevant.

So clever

[Autumn]

41. Sorry I don't see Rove asking where Hillary stands on the TPP in that OP.

Are you aware that the TPP has the potential to harm millions of hard working Americans?

[kenfrequed]

44. It amazes me.

A website that we could be using to go over issues to select a candidate we have people that want to thwart questions in order to shield their personal preferences from scrutiny. This is Democratic Underground, not General-Election. We should discuss, debate and choose a candidate based on the issues.

For me trade policy is a huge issue!

[Autumn]

45. That should be a huge issue for any Democrat. Or any thinking person

for that matter.

[arcane1]

32. A truthful answer would make Hillary look bad, hence this poster's desperate need to ignore it.

Desperate and transparent, I might add

[Autumn]

42. That's exactly what it is. Question Hillary shaming

[L0oniX]

62. ^^^this^^^

[Autumn]

67. It just doesn't get any funnier than that

Asking her questions is doing Roves work.

[Enthusiast]

56. Bullshit! It is not gotcha.

I will not vote for a candidate that supports the TPP. Would that be Hillary? I want to know. But I already know. She doesn't give a single fuck about us and our few remaining manufacturing jobs.

[Aerows]

14. A shitload of people

from the entire spectrum of politics from far right to far left and everyone in between are asking "What is in the TPP, and why can't we see it before it is passed?"

I can't imagine Karl Rove, or anyone with an IQ over room temperature NOT asking questions about everything surrounding the TPP.

[frylock]

57. nobody gives two fucks about karl rove

[sabrina 1]

89. Far more important, though Rove may be important to YOU, is that millions of American Workers are

asking, Unions are asking, some of our Best Democrats are asking.

And since you are so familiar with Rove, could you maybe explain what this means:

important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.

What will a 'level playing field' with Third World pay scales look like to America's Working Class?

[Romeo.lima333]

92. rove important to me? im not part of the pack doing his work for him

What will a 'level playing field' with republican pay scales look like to America's Working Class after bernie wins the primary and loses to jeb bush in the general.

[sabrina 1]

99. Apparently Rove is important to you or you would not have referred to him. He and his Republican

'team' are FOR the TPP. That alone ought to be enough for anyone to be against it. You however, seem to be FOR it, as are most Republicans.

I can only judge what is important to you by what you say, who you refer to as an example of support for the TPP. Republicans support it. They support fast tracking this monstrosity. Democrats overall oppose it.

Same thing in 2007. Bush wanted to Fast Track his Trade Bill. Republicans were mostly for it, DEMS STOPPED IT back then and hopefully will do it again when it reaches the House.

I could not care less what Rove 'thinks' or doesn't think. He isn't even on my radar, so find someone with some credibility to help you get this bill passed, because the mere mention of the criminal in an attempt to attack Democrats, simply loses you credibility.

[Romeo.lima333]

100. again if rove were important to me i'd be helping him by smearing hillary but im not.

one may not care what Rove 'thinks' or doesn't think if someone is attempting to smear hillary here they and he are on the same team. and by "you" i dont mean you specificallly it's the general "you"

[sabrina 1]

101. Show me where I have 'smeared Hillary' please.

[Romeo.lima333]

102. from the post you responded to."and by "you" i dont mean you specifically it's the general "you" "

i took out the word you i wasnt accusing you

[sabrina 1]

103. Okay, because I don't believe in personally smearing candidates. I do believe in

legitimate questions about where they stand on the issues and criticizing them when I believe they are wrong, including those I support when necessary or have supported. That, just for the record, is not smearing a candidate, it is a necessary part of politics.

[Romeo.lima333]

104. i dont believe that's what is going on in this post. hillary cant pass or veto this she didnt write

it and she's not commenting on it so some have taken it upon themselves to try to influence others
She's just playing political games with her "reserving judgment" line. Her book was written after she left the State Department. She should have the guts to come out with her position, instead of pretending that she's reserving judgment.

you may call it criticizing them when they are " wrong", but this looks like the same thing rove is doing with his american crossroads ads.

wait til she has made a statement about the tpp before telling us what she thinks about the bill she didnt write and can neither pass or veto

[sabrina 1]

105. The point is, she has made a statement on the TPP. She has said she will 'wait and see' what

transpires, that she is 'watching closely' what is going on.

The trouble with that statement is this. The upcoming vote is to decide to Fast Track this bill. IF that succeeds, there will be no more opportunity to fix anything in the agreement that is harmful to the American people. It will be too late.

To be honest, my question to her would have been: 'Do you support Fast Tracking Trade Bills'. I am not sure if anyone did ask her that question.

But that is what is at issue right now. And since most Democrats have voluntarily, without being asked, correctly objected to fast tracking a Trade Bill that the American people are being prevented from seeing, it makes sense to oppose doing that.

Eg, Bush tried this in 2007, to Fast Track his Trade Bill. Democrats stopped him, rightfully so.

So my question would be more specific to what is relevant right now: 'Do you support the Fast Tracking of Trade Bills that Congress has not been permitted to see, or alter in any way, or discuss with their constituents'.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Today: Support for trade agreements that increase jobs and wages" (in other countries, I'm guessing)

It's hard to tell, she's very rarely specific.

Even on these very special days where she takes FIVE questions!

[Scuba]

5. Not being loudly and adamantly opposed to the TPP should be a disqualifier for a Dem candidate.

[cali]

7. I don't agree. Let voters decide

what I find less than deserving of respect is her pretending that she's reserving judgment.

[Scuba]

64. Yeah, how does she think she'll get away with that after what she wrote in her book?

[eloydude]

9. Cali, your impeccable research

is invaluable.

Thank you for your continued support for Bernie and dissemination of Hillary Clinton's actual positions. Many are currently in denial mode, and the ardent Clintonites are now "ignoring" me.. I wonder if there's a way to tell how many are ignoring me. I don't care who...

[cali]

10. thanks. I'm sure there are many who are ignoring me too

but this pretending to be reserving judgment is so contemptuous of voters, it deserves to be exposed.

[upaloopa]

33. Hey I am not ignoring you

You have nothing at this time
Nov 2016 is a long way off and you will get your answer. Now go praise Bernie while he is still a candidate because come Nov 2016 he won't be!

[Hoyt]

13. Glad to hear she has the foresight to back it. Thanks for posting.

[cali]

19. lol and I know it doesn't bother you in the least that she's fibbing about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. She'll say whatever she's paid to say; like a coin-operated ventriloquist dummy.

[Sobax]

36. +1

[upaloopa]

27. Well another Hillary unpaid campaign advisor

How many does this make now? And you're so special that you know the answers to your questions before you ask them. But you still demand that Hillary run things by your schedule.
You who don't even support her. How f...ing generous of your time you are!

[cali]

29. A candidate for President should tell voters where she/he stands on issues and

not obfuscate and fib.

This has shit all to do with being a "Hillary unpaid campaign advisor". It has nothing to do with wanting her to run things by my schedule. It has everything to do with expecting a modicum of honesty on an important issue from the leading Democratic Party candidate for the presidency.

That anyone could think that's too much to ask, is sad reflection on our body politic.

[upaloopa]

39. Yes and she should spend campaign time

completely on the cuff in case you demand she respond to you.
When she saves your ass by placing 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court remember this time ok?

[cali]

47. jaysus. it's not about me. It's about a candidate's duty to the voting public

something you seem to have no grasp of at all.

and when hillary loses to some repuke, I'll be blaming people like YOU

[upaloopa]

48. Not a chance

[cui bono]

75. Wait... Hillary is the only Democrat that would appoint liberal justices to SCOTUS?

You should post that in Breaking News!!! I'm shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

Btw... as Hillary is a centrist at best, I hardly think she would actually appoint one single "liberal".

[Smarmie Doofus]

31. Excuse me:

Have you SCIENTIFICALLY determined that her index finger iS ....in fact... *DRY*?

Ms. Clinton... as ALWAYS.... is a work in progress. Another way of saying it is: " a moving target is hard to hit."

We await her next cognition.

[MaggieD]

43. She's been pretty clear....

She knows that trade agreements are going to exist in a global economy, and she would like the TPP to set a precedent for worker rights that we have not seen in previous trade agreements.

You can agree or disagree with her point of view. But it's not accurate to paint her as against workers.

[cali]

50. lol. she's been dishonest. She touted it strongly post-State Dept

in her book. Now, for political purposes, she's saying something that she has made clear, is not true.

I'm not painting her against workers. And she's painting herself as a dishonest politician.

[MaggieD]

51. Nah, her voting record backs up her consistent stance

It's clear to me. You hate her, so I can see why you can't see clearly on the issue.

[cali]

58. It's right in the OP. She clearly endorsed it. Now she's saying she's reserving judgment

and no I don't like her as a candidate, but I certainly don't hate her. I don't like her as a candidate because I don't think she's honest. I think she'll say just about anything in the name of winning the WH, and I think her judgment on issue after issue, is just plain awful

[MaggieD]

60. Again, she has been clear....

She sees it as a potential vehicle to right the wrongs of previous trade agreements. The fact that she is reserving judgment is because she would not support it if it did not do that.

Her voting record is clear. She voted against CAFTA, which was the only major trade agreement up for vote when she was senator.

[cali]

63. she isn't reserving judgment. She has come out strongly in support of it

it's right there in the op. and she wasn't working for Obama when she wrote that.

there really isn't any argument here. She wrote it.

[MaggieD]

68. No she hasn't....

In fact she is very consistent on bad trade bills....

In addition to voting against CAFTA we also have this:

"Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.

That’s not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if you’re a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracy—she was just opposing it then to throw the rest of us off the scent, but she’d support it later when it mattered. In fact, she was so intent on hiding her “real” position that she even parted ways with campaign manager Mark Penn because he was consulting for the Colombian government in behalf of the deal."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-clintons-still-aren-t-corrupt.html

[BrotherIvan]

77. You don't know that she CHANGED her position on the Columbia trade deal????

In April 2008, before the Pennsylvania primary, where she was trying to woo white working-class men, she said of a Colombia deal that she "will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement."

But again, as secretary of state, she changed her tune.

2010:
"First, let me underscore President Obama's and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass it. We think it's strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade Agreement finally ratified."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

You don't even know the stances of your own candidate?

[MaggieD]

78. I apparently know more than you do....

"So then she became Secretary of State. And, indeed, she did start supporting it—but after that became the administration’s position. Obama had also opposed the deal, which the Bush administration had begun negotiating with Colombia back in 2006, as a candidate.

But the Obama administration used the Colombia deal as a test case for whether it could get a trade partner to agree to tougher labor protections (there was, and still is, violence against trade unionists in Colombia, although the number of killings has gone down since the pact) as part of gaining access to U.S. markets. The labor provisions got in there. People debate today how much good they’ve done, but they’re in there, and so Obama and Clinton changed their position and backed the deal."

Is she just supposed to be against any trade on principle? Why?

[BrotherIvan]

79. So you just left that part out when you said

and I quote

In fact she is very consistent on bad trade bills....

And then, to prove her consistency and integrity added this

"Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.

Now you are trying to argue that she only came out so strongly FOR the deal because the Obama administration made her? Would that be the same administration that brokered a deal with her before she became Sec of State not to accept donations from new foreign governments?

[MaggieD]

80. I posted a damn link to the article

Are you seriously blaming me because you didn't read it? LOL!

[BrotherIvan]

81. That article certainly reaches your level of apologeia

Good job, you reconvinced yourself...and no one else.

[Doctor_J]

94. Ah, but the president ALSO flip-flopped on the Colombian trade deal. So that negates HRC's flip

Two negatives make a positive, as you've probably heard.

[BrotherIvan]

97. And three flip flops make an ice cream sundae

Hater!

[Hoyt]

65. Exactly. She's been very clear, even laying out goals the final TPP must meet for her ultimate

approval when released.

Problem is -- people who are buying into all the "sky is falling" and "the TPP possibly, could lead to XXXX terrible outcome," don't like her reasoned response.

[AtomicKitten]

46. Of course, the kabuki theater pretending we don't notwithstanding.

She participated in writing it, gave speeches touting it, and has accepted a shit-ton of money vis a vis the foundation from the industry promoting it.

And some are still pretending they just don't know where she stands? Pahleeeeeeze.

[MaggieD]

69. Links?

Here is one for you:

"Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement,” she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.

That’s not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if you’re a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracy—she was just opposing it then to throw the rest of us off the scent, but she’d support it later when it mattered. In fact, she was so intent on hiding her “real” position that she even parted ways with campaign manager Mark Penn because he was consulting for the Colombian government in behalf of the deal."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-clintons-still-aren-t-corrupt.html

She also voted against CAFTA. It's ridiculous to pretend she is some huge supporter of free trade bills.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. This is an area where my timing and cues come from organized labor groups of which I am a lifelong

member, because the trade issues are far more important to me than the candidates in any given election. It's pretty easy to see that Trumka and other labor leaders are not pressuring Hillary to make a stand at this time and there are very good reasons for that with which I agree.
As a person whose objective is to halt any trade agreement that is not fully beneficial to working people and highly protective and promotional of human rights, my thinking on Hillary is that if she comes out for the agreement I really don't give a shit when she does that because labor, LGBT groups, and others will tear that stance to shreds in any given 24 hour period. Today, next month, who cares? If, on the other hand she opposes the bill, I'd like her to do so when the timing is such that it has the greatest impact on the passage of the deal. That's not today. Which is why those who have spent years on this issue are not calling for her to talk about it today. Those who are, I don't agree with them.

[F4lconF16]

52. Question...

Why do you believe that she would have more impact later as opposed to now? The media is avoiding coverage at the moment. Having her come out with a strong stance against it would sway a lot of opinion as well as raise awareness. She has the bully pulpit; if she opposes, why not use it to great effect now? We need all the resistance we can get, and that means the earlier she opposes it, the better, imo.

[paulkienitz]

54. she made up her mind, but she could easily un-make it up

Her campaign position this spring has been quite a bit more progressive than what her stated priorities were as recently as last November. I think it's pretty clear that she's stuck up a finger and recognized that the wind is blowing strongly to the left, and as part of this shift, I wouldn't be surprised if she might change her tune. She's not going to be so loyal to corporate backers that she's willing to risk losing the election over one stink-bomb issue.

[RufusTFirefly]

55. Just goes to show ya: you can't believe everything you read

I'll bet she misquoted herself. Or maybe she was sleep deprived when she wrote that chapter.

[Exilednight]

59. Her book is called hard choices, just don't ask her any questions in which she may have to

To take a position.

[bigwillq]

66. K and R (nt)

[gordianot]

71. I would like some journalist to ask any candidate their degree of awareness on TPP.

Instead you get bullshit questions about emails and retrenching on the well known disaster of war in Iraq.

This applies to any candidate for President.

1. Have you been following trade deals held in secret such as TPP and are you aware of contents where they are currently?

2. If so do you know how they will impact American trade and industry give specifics?

3. Do you trust those Legislatures and Administrative executives who are conducting the negotiations to benefit the country you wish to govern?

4. Have you read and are you aware of the contents of these trade deals?


5. If you are elected do you intend to honor your oath of office as it relates trade? Do you have any leeway to change your mind?

6. Do the American people have the right to know.


Not just Hillary any candidate including the Republican clown car.
I really do not expect to get an answer to any of my question.

[AzDar]

82. The answer...my friend...like Hillary, is blowing in the wind...

[woo me with science]

86. "Playing political games" = LYING TO OUR FACES

Let's be clear about the outright contempt for voters, the bait and switch, the contempt for what a representative electoral process is supposed to be.

Enough of fake democracy and corporate perversion of elections into lying theater.

Enough of oligarchy.

[cali]

87. hey, what's a little hypocrisy and arrogance in political campaign?

[ucrdem]

88. Apparently NAFTA added US jobs steadily for six years, just like Bill promised it would:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026700031

[Doctor_J]

91. KNEW her position. she's been, er, flexible on healthcare and gay marriage and a few

other issues, so maybe now she's against it. Not that anyone will ask her.

[chev52]

106. Worker's rights.

Whenever well paying American jobs are to be sent to low wage countries, free trader democrats like to bring up Worker rights. Yeah, the rights of the workers in those low wage countries that get the jobs previously done in America. Whether they actually care about the Vietnamese who will make about sixty cents an hour doing a job an American used to do, doesn't matter. There will still be a net job loss to American workers.

[cali]

107. kick. for those calling me a liar

if you can't see that that second bit in particular is an endorsement, you're either in full blown denial or you're not being honest, or you're laboring under a delusion.