General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHRC restates her opinion on TPP
Same as she has been saying all along. It is the second question in the video. I know it's not the kneejerk response some would prefer. But it is the kind of thoughtful response I want in a leader.
https://m.
eloydude
(376 posts)In other words
TRIANGULATION.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Can you be specific?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So no matter which way things go she can refer back to that statement as an "I told you so".
Lets put it this way, what base did she not cover?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Can you be specific"- excellent question.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Political triangulation is where you try to present you positions as being beteen - and superior to - either right or left posiitions on the same issue.
What Clinton is doing here is "hedging," which is a debate tactic where you non-answer with lots of qualifiers so that you cna be considered "correct" no matter what - or at least not incorrect.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It included enforceable regs on currency manipulation. That would solve a lot of trade problems. Not all, but a lot. So her concerns are very valid.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I think it might be due to a little more than "just one thing."
But hey, they're just irrational purist idiots, right? They ought to sell out, be pragmatic, join the republicans, and "win" right?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And a make or break issue for many democrats. Including HRC, I would bet (based on reading her book). It would pass easily if strong currency manipulation regs were included. IMO.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This does not change the fact that, by the logic you have shown me, they should seek to "win" by giving up that principle.
Sacrifices to be more pragmatic. Else they'll be purists and lose!
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Adding just that will not move people who are against it for other reasons.
I say this as someone who thinks it could be possible to write a trade agreement that is better than not having one at all. If a trade agreement could improve labor conditions everywhere and environmental concerns, it could be a positive.
Remember that there already is trade and it is legal. That will continue with or without a treaty. Look at the labels of clothes you buy. Almost everything is made overseas and that has been the case for decades.
What concerns me about the treaty is that people from Paul Krug man to Elizabeth Warren have problems with some of the provisions they have seen. However the treaty is not yet finalized. What is being asked is that it be voted on without amendments. This is a process that has been used for decades. When negotiating with 12 countries, having amendments may make it impossible to get any deal.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the posters who make a big deal of it starting out deciding they would not like it. They've come up with several things they thought they could use to attack it.
They are just waiting for more. There's no attempt to be objective. Someone just thought this would be a good thing to use to divide Democrats.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Keystone XL was the a lot like that on the Democratic side: a majority of the party supported it but you could never tell that from netroots.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And countries engage in currency manipulation because of shit like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017267303
treestar
(82,383 posts)So she is not rabidly against it, which makes no sense. She's not rabidly for it as it is not out yet.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't think you can be a successful president without that quality.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)She was for it before she was "concerned" about it. At least she didn't say "I voted against it before I voted for it"... but her current stance still doesn't strike me as good leadership. We will have to wait until she is told by the pollsters which side of the fence to get on it, then she will lead the charge for (or against) whatever gives her the best shot of getting in her dream home. Once in the WH however, all bets are off.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She wrote in her last book. Published a year ago.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Right? That is what she wrote in "Hard Choices"... so the "gold standard in trade agreements" is actually another word for "concern"? LOL
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Did you read the book?
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Per NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
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."
Sure as hell doesn't sound like she was "concerned" about it in Hard Choices now does it? Keep up the disinformation though.. war is peace, etc etc.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Please give me her unedited version of Hard Choices, in which she states she has "concern" over the TPP, as you claim this was her position in the book. So far all you have come up with as a retort is "nu-uh!"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You'll enjoy. She's smart and thoughtful on a wide range of issues. Her first book was similar.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)...that contains the word "concerned" with regards to the TPP. Carry on, fiction can be entertaining
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No, sorry. I can recognize a person who isn't overly interested in facts.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)I certainly wouldn't want to tax you too much by asking for a quote... standing up and walking to a book shelf must be a real back breaker.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If you were you'd find out for yourself.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Whats your obsession with me buying the book? Besides the fact that me not owning it is an easy excuse for you to dismiss all the all the quotes I've pulled from NPR and other sources... I'd rather spend the $15 on something to bbq this weekend. No quote, no credit... move on.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And saying you don't know because you don't want to know. Not because you don't have the ability to know. Get it from the library. You don't have to buy it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)No quote, no credit
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... that you don't agree with me.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)No quote, no credit
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Check your public library.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)We aren't in a public library, we are online. I've checked online. Your turn... no quote, no credit
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I too, assiduously avoid primary sources to better validate my biases and predicate all my presumptions on second-hand reviews.
(distinction without a difference in three... two... one)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Representation of her views. No where in the book did she use the word "concerned."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She is very explicit about what the U.S. interests are in the TPP. And she discusses challenges with China and the Asian market countries extensively throughout the book.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Find exactly what you are referring to.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement that is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets. It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.
Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then- Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. Its safe to say that the TPP wont be perfect no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Crickets?
I think maybe you didn't really read the book. Am I right? LOL!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why not just admit the book says what you claimed it didn't say right on the pages I told you it said it?
How hard is that?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Will rebut when I get home.
I wanted you to post the passage so I can prove a point. Nothing like having you do the work for me.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Except that you obviously didn't actually read the book.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Autumn
(44,986 posts)How many versions of her book are out there? Will a new version come out every time she changes her opinion to suit the issue that will sound the best?. Really Mags you are failing at this. You are not the only person who has bought and read her book.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Admit you didn't actually read it. LOL!
"One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of the TPP negotiations is to establish a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement that is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets. It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.
Our country has learned the hard way over the past several decades that globalization and the expansion of international trade brings costs as well as benefits. On the 2008 campaign trail, both then- Senator Obama and I had promised to pursue smarter, fairer trade agreements. Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. Its safe to say that the TPP wont be perfect no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)What you just posted here are her praising the goals of TPP.
Her concerns are if these goals are not achieved.
"Ignorance is strength."
madville
(7,404 posts)Or is she both for it and against it at the same? Or maybe neither for it or against it?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If it does not change materially from it's current form. Her reasons mirror my own. Lack of enforceability. No currency manipulation regs, problems with IDIS. I like when politicians presume I'm smart enough to understand the details.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You did not write that HRC "said" (emphasis added) that "she will be against it.... etc"
You wrote that it "Sounds like she will be against it ... depending" because as people have said, she is not taking a position. She is engaging in hedging Rhetoric to avoid taking any position so she can say something that is safe and can be read from any direction.. She did not even take a solid "wait and see" position which at least would be clear even if avoiding the fact we know a great deal about past trade deals and some of the current drafts from leaks.
If a politician is clear and straightforward, one does not have to guess by saying "i think she said" or "Sounds like she said" or "Sounds like she". If someone takes a position we can usually say what position it is without hedging ourselves on what that position is. In this case, she didn't even clearly take a "wait and see position". This at least would be a position and one which it appears is the position that you think it "sounds like" what Hillary said. See I am not sure what your position is because I have to say "appears like" rather than clearly identifying that you think Hillary is against what has been leaked and what has been included in prior deals.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I hope that clears things up.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)There is a 60 day comment period.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
sendero
(28,552 posts).. anyone thinks that the words HRC, or any other high-level politician for that matter, says has any meaning whatsoever in terms of their actual intentions or future governance choices is, well, amusing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That must be devastating to his supporters.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... but not nearly to the degree a serial-triangulator like HRC can do. At least in terms of record Bernie has something to point to other than an idiotic vote to go to war for nothing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The TPA includes that requirement.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Fast track TO BE USED FOR ANY TRADE BILL NEGOTIATED. This basically means that there is a vote on the agreement as negotiated with no amendments.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Facts matter.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority which now goes to a skeptical House.
If TPA passed Congress it authorizes the administration to negotiate trade agreements following Congressional guidelines and final approval.
We will all see TPP published on-line in a final draft before Congress does anything!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why don't you just admit you were wrong. It's not a sin to make a mistake. Even on the internet.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And if it isn't there will not be a TPP bill to worry about. Come on - it's not the end of the world to admit you are wrong. You can do it.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or can you explain how the TPP can pass if TPA fails? I'm very interested in your thoughts on that.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Good luck trying.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,021 posts)workers and the environment enough for their satisfaction and the guy pushing it with all his might will declare victory.
If you are for fast track then you are for not only this scam but everyone for six years no matter what future rhetoric or votes no you put on for show.
This is it, this is the time opposition functionally matters. Anything else is hedging and rationalizing.
Clinton is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Mark her as affirmative.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Seemed to "give a fuck."
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... And rationally. And that's not working either.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The TPA includes a 60 day minimum comment period. It appears that it will pass. If it does not pass do you think there is any possibility of TPP passing? The answer is no. None.
So it's silly to say that the TPP will be passed with the public not seeing it. It's just not true.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If the TPP is not a "done deal" yet the way she's describing it, and she doesn't like parts of what appear to be in it, then shouldn't it be logical that she should NOT want the TPA to pass?
And by the way, the TPP COULD pass without the TPA, it just would be practically harder, especially if it has a lot of CRAP that people don't like that congress people don't want to attach their names to, even if a lot of campaign money is attached to passing it.
If it is so good for us, then we shouldn't be too worried about passing TPA NOW, and either pass it later AFTER the TPP is finally drafted in final form where pols like Hillary can say whether they like it or don't like it, or just pass the TPP by itself under regular congressional rules if it is so good for us.
The bottom line is that Hillary wants to get credit for "having reservations" about it, but not take ownership of either encouraging a future congress of hers to take actions based on those reservations to publicly say whether they should pass or not pass TPA. Which tells me that either:
a) she is trying to avoid making any firm commitments to the public, and by being quiet anticipates that it will pass the way her corporate backers want it to, or
b) she doesn't really care that these things that she "has reservations on" are a part of the TPP and get passed with it.
Either a or b tells me that she doesn't really care about working for the interests of us and communicating with us what she wants to happen. If she really cares about these "reservations" the way she's trying to say here, then she should say that unless these issues are resolved to her liking before the TPA is put to the House for a vote, that she would recommend that the House vote it down. Then we can know that if she supports or doesn't support the TPA, that she supports what's in the TPP in total or not, and have that as a metric to judge her by as a candidate. Right now we have just a lot of ambiguity (by DESIGN in my book!).
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)conjecture there!
It can't just be simply her answer?
"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."
Not the answer you want? You're going to give it for her...
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Why decide to pass it without changes NOW with TPA if TPP still hasn't been completed yet?
Why would you agree to do something, if you don't know what you are agreeing to, and are already against some of the things you think will be what you are going to be asked to do? That is what passing TPA in effect does now.
Even if Hillary might want to support TPP in its final form, she should provide LEADERSHIP now in saying that what's on paper now is NOT ready for us to pass TPA yet to get TPP passed later without "questioning it" then that is codified with passing TPA.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's not secret. It covers each idea Hillary touches on. And a whole lot more!
The Senate added amendments. Now TPA heads to the House. Where anything can happen. Are you suggesting the Republican House is waiting with baited breath for some Hillary leadership? They don't listen to the actual president!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Fast Track is what is being decided NOW! With one vote left in the House. It is time for one to take a stance on it if one wants to keep it from passing the House. If she waits any longer, Fast Track (TPA) will pass, and with it, TPP will likely get passed later.
If Democrats in the Senate had been standing against TPA, it wouldn't have gotten to a vote, without corporate Democrats support. If Hillary emphasized that Democrats that are with her should vote against it, then they might have voted against it then. Obama is a lame duck. Hillary is potentially the future leader that congress will need to work with.
If she takes the stance of what people want, and who she SHOULD in good conscience be siding with, then congress critters would be less likely to get bought than they were without hers or Obama's guidance to vote against it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Trade Promotion Authority is not code word for "fast track." Actually, 'fast track' is a misnomer attached to TPA!
TPA is Congressional authorization for the administration to negotiate trade agreements. The House will consider and vote on it maybe in June.
Depending on what TPA specifies, if passed, that will determine if TPP or any other agreements will even be forwarded by the president.
TheKentuckian
(25,021 posts)what excuses and rationalizations you have for why.
It is too late to care when you are hanging your hopes for a good deal that protects American workers and the environment on the TeaPubliKlans.
Yes, you are for it and them all regardless of impotent posturing after the fact.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You have been answered. "Nothing is law."
And you are 'cantbeserious'?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)....Understands how the process works. Can't have the TPP unless the TPA passes. TPA includes the provision for a comment period of 60 days minimum.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"Hillary bad!"
"Obama bad!"
How can you possibly argue with that?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)There are some here who will stretch themselves into pretzels to defend the indefensible. After all who cares if we lose our sovereignty as a country? Those high priced corporate lawyers will make sure we are taken care of in trade disputes.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)What you said - "After all who cares if we lose our sovereignty as a country?"
I'm looking for some mustard!
karynnj
(59,498 posts)I assume that what you are speaking of seeing is not the bill to allow fast track, which is available via Thomas the Congressional record on line.
You are speaking of the various trade agreements that will be given fast track. Each of these agreements will need to be ratified by the Senate. The difference is that the agreement as negotiated by the administration will be voted on as is. The point is no amendments. Before a vote on each trade agreement, it will be public. Everyone can see it before it is actually voted on.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)with Vietnam. But of course, she's assuming, and it seems correctly so, that her supporters haven't read her book.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I have the book but have not read it yet. I'm in the middle of trying to finish three other books before I start another one. Coincidentally one of the three is The Bully Pulpit which talks about progressive politics in the early 20th century. That one is a long ass book, plus I've got it on e-book which makes it harder to read.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And she has been saying the same thing all along. Hopefully we can dispense with the canard that she hasn't addressed it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Look at the TPP before you judge it!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...And accomplish a full and reasoned analysis before the legislature is forced to pass or crash as-is.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)If she's forced to give a yes/no answer, she'll say she has serious concerns, but it's better than no deal.
That's what she always does in these situations.
She read part of the script on that video.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Watch the video. She did not say it's better than no deal at all.
Why do you think she voted against CAFTA?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just the serious concerns part - until she has to (publicly) make a decision.
Good point on CAFTA, although that's an outlier for her.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Voted on while she was a senator. So I'm not sure how you can claim its an "outlier" for her.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)or where she stands on an issue it will be complaint after complaint. She has stated she will make her decision AFTER the final release of the agreement, she also added some concerns so here is her answer. There isn't a need to rewrite her statement, she is quiet capable of giving a statement.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That is all I can conclude. They are invested in their caricature of her.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)When an answer isn't one.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You are suggesting Hillary didn't answer the question?
Or is it really, "When an answer isn't the one I want?"
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)69 she goes into detail about negotiations with Vietnam.
Now she has amnesia about what's in it?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You do understand as of right now, Congress has not authorized or completed guidelines on what these negotiations should include?
The executive branch has been proposing and negotiating frameworks of agreements for years, but nothing is written in stone.
Until Congress finalizes what they will approve, there is nothing!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Know that if you actually read it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It doesn't matter what Hillary did regarding negotiations several years ago. Some of it may stick, some of it may not. She very clearly pointed out she would withhold judgment until she sees it.
Unlike the rest of us, right?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)A fence sitter after giving her robust support Hard Decisions. Maybe the hard decision she made was changing her mind.
By the way, I get your point.
Do you get mine?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)There was no final trade agreement she could support.
She has just said again she supports the goals, but wants to see the final draft before she makes a judgment. She will see it on-line with the rest of us. When we can all make reasonable rational judgment.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)and know what she wrote. Please don't confuse me with someone who has no knowledge of her position and relies on talking points.
Her mind is made up, she just doesn't have the backbone to defend her position. She's counting on the fact that people didn't read her book, and apparently she is right for thinking so.
JEB
(4,748 posts)just like war in Iraq. Clouds of corporate sponsored bullshit billowing around and politicians cheering ti on or ducking for cover. Will anybody stand in the tracks and stop this thing? Doubtful. If we had a "trade Agreement" written by unions, workers and environmentalists instead of corporate lobbyists who would support it?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Why negotiate with countries that have no labor or environmental standards? Why influence how they move into the future? And what will we compromise, because no one gets everything they want?
When the TPP is published on-line for you to see, then you can make your own judgment.
https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/labor-advisory-committee-lac
https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/trade-and-environment-policy-advisory-committee-tepac
JEB
(4,748 posts)position we are forced into. I am predisposed toward rejection under the all or nothing preconditions. I do not trust or generally agree with the folks (corporate lobbyists) who are doing the negotiations.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But I take your point.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This pos "passes" both criteria
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This pos "passes" both criteria
treestar
(82,383 posts)Since it is not completely negotiating, no one should be taking these big stands on it yet.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)talk about issues.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)for going to war or any other thing. She pandering and triangulating her answers as always.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)who can be firmly against something which doesn't actually exist.
"...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."
TBF
(32,017 posts)on this agreement? Do you honestly believe they are sworn to secrecy on something that doesn't actually exist? If you do believe this I have an amazing bridge for sale in West Texas that I'd love to talk to you about. I'm selling it for M$100. I think you would agree you should go ahead and buy it and worry about whether it actually exists later.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Walking away".
What a finely honed piece of equivocation THAT was. She couldn't even suggest that we should be prepared to ACTUALLY walk away, but we should be prepared to consider it.
I'm sure the Bob Shrum level geniuses in charge of her messaging are telling her to avoid giving concrete answers like they are poison oak, but "leadership" it aint.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You can spin anywhere you want by the word.
What she said - "...I want to judge this when I see what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards."
In case watching the video, what she just said 2 days ago, has nothing to do with comments.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm looking for a different word this time around, it's called "leadership".
It's not even about the TPP per se. It's about taking clearly articulated stands on potentially controversial issues, without worrying whether some people may or may not like it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary Clinton is the top candidate for President of the United States.
I think she has leadership covered.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Still, there will be a primary process. The Convention is still a year out.
Plenty of time for folks to figure out that talking down to lifelong Democratic party activists might not be the best way to woo their votes.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I am explaining to anyone who might read your comments that there are facts and other opinions.
This is not an Echo Chamber and we are not in a Bubble.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I dont decide who to vote for or not on the basis of DU, anyway.
Of course there are facts and opinions- and my opinion, here, is that I dont care how may self-appointed experts say it is, refusing to take clear stands on controversial issues is NOT "leadership", any more than a rusty pickup truck is a saturn V rocket.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... A knee jerk response. Okay. Well I like that about her. To each their own. But I can't imagine how having a president prone to knee jerk responses would be good for the country.
TBF
(32,017 posts)And we understand the third way does not give a crap about that. Just so we're clear.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In fact one of the provisions she sought in the TPP was collective bargaining rights for workers in the countries included in the trade pact.
Fancy that, huh?
She will have plenty of support from labor and unions when she wins the nomination.
TBF
(32,017 posts)We've been over this. Bargaining over whether to receive .25/hour or .35/hour because all of our jobs have moved overseas is not the kind of "leveling" I wish to see in this country.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is that your position?
TBF
(32,017 posts)and send the third way packing. Is that clear enough for you ProSense - um - I mean "MaggieD".
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Of globalization? Just pretend it doesn't exist and do nothing?!
TBF
(32,017 posts)because we have to join with other workers globally to fight back against billionaires who are now obviously not loyal to any one country. And that's why we need the internet. And that's why I'm fighting TPP.
For those who are interested - what we've managed to find out so far: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)TBF
(32,017 posts)nt
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That includes a plan for anything let alone tackling issues like globalization. It's simply a statement about 3 problems. No plan. And certainly nothing about globalization.
So apparently I'm not the only one that has no idea what his plan is. You don't either.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Rather than just hearing no from Bernie. To each their own.
TBF
(32,017 posts)I'd like to know exactly what is meant by that. Does her vision include all of us worldwide working for peanuts? Because that seems to be the direction we're going. The more jobs we outsource, the more we lose here, drives wages down here in the US because there is more competition for every single job. Meanwhile in other countries yes, jobs are created. But are we, globally speaking, cruising to a lowest common denominator? Is THAT what "creating a level playing field" means? Because that is what I'm seeing.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)the struggle of the poor-- but only on one very, very specific front; the slave workers in Third World countries. If we're talking about Social Security, corporate taxes, Wall Street regulation, and all the rest, they're proud to say they're 'conservative on fiscal issues'.
But on this one point, they're suddenly Mother Theresa, so concerned with the plight of the poor that they just have to send some US jobs there, so those people can do them in exchange for a daily bowl of gruel.
You know-- to help!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is include rights to unions organizing in other countries included in the pact. So that would certainly seem to advance to goal of leveling the playing field.
I'll believe it when I see it. But that is one of the U.S. objectives in the negotiations.
TBF
(32,017 posts)are you trying to tell me the billionaires will support unions in other countries? And then when those unions are able to get .25 an hour rather than .15 we have victory? While our wages steadily drop here.
WTF? Seriously.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Her "position" on TPP is that she's going to make up her mind, with key considerations being whether it addresses currency manipulation and whether it includes ISDS.
That's garbage. We already know, for a fact, based on statements from the Obama Administration, that TPP does not and will not include currency manipulation, and that it does and will include ISDS.
Therefore, she's stated her "position" in support of a fantasy agreement that has no counterpart back here in the real world. She alluded vaguely to generic goals. On the real agreement that will be presented, her "position" is that she favors an agreement that helps American jobs and opposes an agreement that imperils national security. Wow, that's brave.
And, of course, on the TPA, which is now the subject of ferocious politicking on Capitol Hill and where she could actually use her stature to influence the outcome one way or the other, she's absolutely silent. The full text is available online so she doesn't even have the dodge of waiting to see the text.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)I think it goes something like when you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)There is a fine fine line between being thoughtful and trying very hard to avoid committing to something that will offend people, especially those wealthy people whose favor you are courting. She simultaneously spoke of dangers, but also that we must open trade. This moves the goalposts of the argument now, because, as we know, some are questioning whether any of these "Trade agreements" are desirable in the first place.
If she was being affirmative against the TPP, but wanted to avoid discussing it at all, she could say what she has said in the past, that she wants to renegotiate NAFTA back in 2008.
http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hillary-clintons-nafta-u-turn-says-something-about-her-8212-and-us/
Now, here is a question, since NAFTA I still an issue. Why, when it was a CAMPAIGN POSITION of hers in 2008, has she not made a comment about that now, especially when it would win over many on the Sanders left that frankly think this mess started with NAFTA. It is not like Nafta stopped being an issue in 2008. The fact that she is walking back a campaign position that happens to be VERY pertinent to the agreement called "Nafta on steroids" makes me wonder where she stands.
marmar
(77,056 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)There is also a video at the following link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/harry-reid-trade-insanity_n_7343106.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
"It causes huge job losses," Reid said. "As Einstein said, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, and you expect a different result, that's the definition of insanity."
"We can look at these trade bills over the years -- every one of them without exception causes to American workers job losses. Millions of job losses," Reid added. "But yet they're going to try the same thing again and hope for a different result. That's insanity."
... Who do you trust on this ? Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell?