Hillary Clinton has been a strong proponent of the TPP.

[Ed Suspicious]

"Here’s 33 Direct Quotes of Hillary Clinton Lobbying for the TPP Around the World."

http://usuncut.com/politics/heres-33-direct-quotes-of-hillary-clinton-lobbying-for-the-tpp-around-the-world/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Yes, but that was BEFORE Hillary knew what she was going to put in it! lol

[sabrina 1]

2. Yes, but didn't you know, it's all the rage in the DC bubble to blatantly claim you support or

something and then suddenly, without explanation, do a complete turnaround.

In that Bubble, the unfortunate residents who are so out of touch with the people, believe all the talking points they are given and if any of them seem even a teeny bit puzzled by something that makes no sense, someone will simply rattle off a talking point, sort of like a cult, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good' or something like that.

Money attracts people who do or say anything to get their hands on it.

And that is why it is the most important issue in this campaign. Once we get that money out of politics, we won't hear these kinds of stories anymore. Or the talking points.

We will hear from real people who do have a moral core and who reject the nonsense being spewed by people with no ehthics, no moral core.

I look forward to seeing these soulless individuals having to go get real jobs. It will be good for them imo, and certainly good for the rest of us.

[6chars]

19. Which other candidates are so scrutinized

Where they have to stand by every past statement remotely related to an issue. Look, people should be glad she has taken a position against tpp. Wasn't one of the goals for Sanders to pull her to the left? Why complain when that has worked?

[rhett o rick]

37. If you think her statement now means she has been "pulled to the left" you are naive.

Her past statements show where her ideologies that her. Now, because it's an election time and she is being challenged from the left, she is slightly hedging her bets. She has done this with fracking also. At the time of the AUMF vote she was soundly behind the Republicons and their desire to kill Iraqi's for oil profits. Now she is back tracking because it's election time.

[6chars]

39. I guess we'll know after the primary.

If Hillary wins the nomination, and your theory is correct, she will move toward the center in the fall election. Of course, then she would have the challenge of backtracking a lot of positions while Republicans show clips of her recent statements.

[rhett o rick]

40. Obama is a great example of what will happen. Campaigned to the left and

jumped back to the right after the election.

If elected, when she back-tracks, it will be to the Left's disappointment and Republicons pleasure.

[uponit7771]

3. What's her stance on the TPP today? tia

[artislife]

5. We haven't heard from her TODAY. nt

[jfern]

7. True, she did say "as of today"

Maybe she was just against TPP that day.

[beam me up scottie]

6. She's the TPP's candidate of choice!

Amirite?

[uponit7771]

8. If they supported her in the election like the NRA did Sanders in 1990 you would be in my book, I...

... do syntax fits

[beam me up scottie]

9. Can we count on her to vote for more wars too?

Who was supporting her when she voted for the Iraq war?

And now that she wants regime change in Syria?

Is that something you're in favour of, a more "muscular" foreign policy?

[uponit7771]

10. Clinton supported war for 30 years as Sanders has supported guns and gun manufacturers!? I mean

... you guys can drone on and on about Clinton and the war but she's changed.

That's a good thing no?

[beam me up scottie]

11. "you guys can drone on and on about Clinton and the war but she's changed."

Obviously she hasn't, that was my point.

Hillary Clinton Promises A MORE MUSCULAR Foreign Policy As President

In Break With White House, Clinton Advocates Syria No-Fly Zone

[merrily]

15. False as to Sanders. See Reply 12.

[merrily]

12. ONCE, 25 YEARS AGO, because his opponent had angered the NRA. He would have won anyway

and he never took a penny from them. What was he supposed to do, run around to every NRA member in Vermont and tell them to disregard the letter they got from the NRA, saying to voter for him? Ever since then, they've rated him D- to F, based on his votes in the House and SenaTe. TPP is recent and all on her.

Lame. That's really all you've got?

[SoapBox]

13. Double ditto to the lame.

[Art_from_Ark]

20. On the other hand, Bernie gets a 100% score from the NAACP

but it's still Not Good Enough Bernie!!l1l!

[merrily]

21. From NARAL too. Very high from the ACLU (unlike Hillary), etc.

He gets great scores from where one would hope and low scores from where one would hope. This is ginned up bs because they have so very little else to hold against him. Not as though he advocated for the Iraq War and marriage discrimination or anything like that.

[uponit7771]

29. Sanders has been pro gun and pro gun manufacturer... Sanders voters speak louder than any post

... on a political board

[merrily]

30. Untrue. NRA rates him D- to F CONSISTENTLY.

As far as his voters, they are the people of Vermont. Your attempt to make something out of that is silly. They are the people of the state where he lives, period.

[uponit7771]

31. Is this before or after they supported him in an election because of his pro gun stance?

Sanders voted for gun manufacturers ... and against the Brady Bill..

His votes are there to see no? tia

[merrily]

32. More disingenousness. I've already replied to that point. Once, 25 years ago, and bc

the NRA was mad at Sanders' Republican opponent for switching his positions. And the endorsement came before he ever cast a single vote in Congress.

His votes are there to see no?

Yes, and you can bet the NRA not only sees them but scrutinizes them in detail. And, for the third time, the NRA rated Sanders's votes F most years and D- the rest, throughout his entire 25 years in Congress.

Among other "gun" votes, he voted for the assault weapons ban and for increasing background checks. That bill was defeated because 15 Democrats voted with Republicans.

Harping on just one "gun" vote in a 25 year career is dishonest, IMO.

What else you got?

[uponit7771]

33. The response is a red herring, it doesn't matter how long ago they supported him They did... and...

... that's fact and they supported him because of his pro gun stances.

The letter grades from the NRA now are political from a group of useless assholes in the NRA and no one takes them seriously any longer.

and it wasn't just "one" gun vote, it's been his overall stance... against the Brady Bill ... against holding gun manufacturers liable... against some other shit..

He's been pro gun, that's why the NRA supported him 200 years or 20 years or 2 years ago.. who gives a damn... the time...

His votes are there for us to see

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Sanders is pro gun with common sense... that's too pro gun for me

[merrily]

34. LMAO. Of course it matters when they supported him and why. They did NOT support him

because he was pro gun. My prior post says why they supported him. And they sure did not vote him because of his voting record because he had not yet even gotten to Congress, so he had never cast a gun vote.

And I've already said what I think of your harping on one vote--which he cast because he thought it was better left to state law since states vary greatly. Vermont is not New York or Florida.

I'm sorry common sense doesn't work for you, but I am glad that someone for whom common sense does not work is not charge.

Since you don't seem to have much to offer that matters that you haven't said four times already, I'm out. Last word is yours.

[uponit7771]

35. We disagree on that then, they supported him because of his stances on guns that he held not too lon

... long ago.

and again, it wasn't just one vote but I feel you'll be ignoring that large fact.

I could care less how smart the gun control is ... it isn't enough... that's the dumb part about it.

Clinton has already outlined some EOs she'll take on guns

Sanders will soon follow in some kind... book mark

[rhett o rick]

41. I think her stance is that she isn't happy with all she's seen and if elected would work to make

it better for the masses. And you can hold her to that.

[uponit7771]

46. Yeap, same as I can hold Sanders to votes on immigration

[artislife]

4. Epiphanies, you can count on them

to happen just when you might need them.

?w=687


Like when this is about to happen
?itok=94GwpuFV

[cprise]

14. K&R

[Duckfan]

16. She's against the TPP?

[840high]

18. That was yesterday. We don't

know today.

[cascadiance]

17. She just wants to "renegotiate" trade deals like Obama did...

Whatever the *F(!!!!)* that meant for Obama then is just as useful now too!!! That's the kind of language that is used in campaigns these days by those who take outside bribery money to fund their campaigns!

[Metric System]

22. As Secretary of State.

[brooklynite]

23. You're missing the point...

...this isn't a thread to debate the issue; it's a thread to Sanders supporters to share their general disdain for Clinton.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. It is pointing out that Hillary can't be trusted.

Her Book was not something that she did as Sec. of State, yet she praised the TPP in it.

Was she lying then or is she lying now? I think it is now, but with her it is impossible to keep track.

[rhett o rick]

42. While I won't totally disagree, I would point out that for the last year progressives have been

asking Clinton supporters to debate the TPP issue with no response except derision. The best response was that they totally support whatever Clinton eventually says. And the same for fracking.

[stonecutter357]

25. I am voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton....

[riversedge]

26. As she said and YOU know-changes have been made that she does NOT support.

[rhett o rick]

43. And I am guessing you agree with her even though she hasn't mention what the changes were or what

parts she doesn't like. Maybe it's the font.

[portlander23]

27. Vox: Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on the TPP makes no sense

Vox: Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on the TPP makes no sense

There are two ways that Clinton's professed concern over an excessively pro-pharma deal rings hollow. One is that — unlike currency manipulation — this is an issue where Clinton speaking up earlier could have made a difference in the negotiations. Instead, Clinton at the time carefully avoided addressing the substance of the TPP's drug provisions. I can't find a single example where she called for Obama to accept the more consumer-friendly terms other countries were demanding.

Second, the final version of the TPP wound up being less friendly to big drug companies than the version US negotiators proposed. If Clinton was concerned about the TPP being too friendly to big drug companies, the final version should have made her more, not less, comfortable, than the "gold standard" version she once praised.

Currency manipulation was never going to be part of the TPP

Clinton knew perfectly well there was zero chance that US negotiators would even bring up the issue, to say nothing of getting other countries to go along with it. Raising the issue in 2015 was simply a way of laying the groundwork for eventual opposition.

[Agony]

28. This should be an OP...

Oh wait it is! http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251655781

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9474151/hillary-clinton-tpp-flip-flop

"One of the most controversial issues in the TPP negotiations was an Obama administration proposal to grant drug companies 12 years of legal protections for a type of drugs called biologics. Companies that develop biologic drugs enjoy 12 years of protection against copycats in the United States, but other countries have shorter terms. The Obama administration was pushing for language requiring all countries to conform to the US standard.

But surprisingly, the US didn't get its way. Other TPP countries opposed the US's proposal, and ultimately the parties agreed to a complex deal that granted between five and eight years of protection.

There are two ways that Clinton's professed concern over an excessively pro-pharma deal rings hollow. One is that — unlike currency manipulation — this is an issue where Clinton speaking up earlier could have made a difference in the negotiations. Instead, Clinton at the time carefully avoided addressing the substance of the TPP's drug provisions. I can't find a single example where she called for Obama to accept the more consumer-friendly terms other countries were demanding.

Second, the final version of the TPP wound up being less friendly to big drug companies than the version US negotiators proposed. If Clinton was concerned about the TPP being too friendly to big drug companies, the final version should have made her more, not less, comfortable, than the "gold standard" version she once praised."

[Babel_17]

36. "the TPP wound up being less friendly to big drug companies"

I guess it depends on the diligence of anyone trying to get an answer to the point that raises, but I see that article as positing a tough question for Secretary Clinton.

[99Forever]

38. A perfect illustration of what happens when you become know as a liar.

Clinton may or may not have had an epiphany about the TPP, but even if she did, which isn't at all likely, NO ONE with a functional brain will believe her. She isn't trustworthy.

Proven liars don't get the benefit of the doubt. Period.

[rhett o rick]

44. Liar is such a harsh word. I would say she is a manipulator of the truth to suit

her immediate goals.

[99Forever]

45. Harsh or not, it's reality.

People who get caught telling lies get known as liars. Like it or not, this is a huge problem for Clinton. Her recent flip flops aren't helping to change that perception.

[uponit7771]

47. The right knows Hillary as a liar

[rhett o rick]

48. So let me guess your point. The Right recognizes HRC as a liar therefore it can't be true.

By the way the Left thinks that HRC has an integrity problem. Funny that the 1% Billionaires think she is great. But they don't care about poverty. The way I see it is that if you care to fight poverty, don't support the billionaires choice. They don't give a crap about poverty. Actually, it's worse than that. The Billionaires want to gain more billions and that probably will mean more poverty.

[99Forever]

49. See....

...even "the right" can be correct every now and then