Hillary WILL NOT Lobby Against The TPP

[Segami]

According to a tweet from Dan Merica at CNN, he asked Hillary if she plans on lobbying against the TPP while Congress mulls putting it up for a vote. Her response was that she will, “State my position,” but not actively lobby against it.

Dan MericaVerified account
@danmericaCNN

Clinton asked if she is going to lobby against the TPP. "No. I am going to state my position" but not lobby against it, she says.

Is this the kind of leadership we should expect from the potential Democratic nominee? To me, if she truly wants to embody the role as a leader on the left (and a so called Progressive) she would not only be lobbying against this crappy “trade” deal now before a potential vote, but she would have also stated her opposition and lobbied against it before the Fast Track vote earlier this summer. Alas, we were disappointed then as well, and it passed. I believe if Hillary voiced her opposition during this crucial vote we would not have seen 28 Democrats voting for Fast Track, and it would have failed.

This is simply another reason why I can’t vote for her, in the primary or general election. Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy. This trade deal will completely gut the middle class while benefiting only the top 10% in the US if it passes. I don’t believe Hillary has truly opposed this deal either. Again, she demonstrated excellent political calculus in saying that she “doesn’t support it in it’s present form.” What exactly does she not like about it? Does this mean she will change her opinion once (if) she is elected?


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/10/1448087/-Hillary-will-not-lobby-against-the-TPP

[TM99]

1. She wants her cake and to eat it too.

She wants the Democratic progressive vote, so she is now against the TPP.

But is she really? Or is it just lip service and pandering much like Obama did only to get in office and do otherwise?

Not lobbying against it shows me exactly where she stands, and it is not with us!

[Segami]

6. Unions need to WAKE UP.

[erronis]

44. And just who do you think REALLY pays the union heads?

Money and power corrupts. Having worked for the Teamsters DC headquarters I have first hand knowledge of how that works.

[INdemo]

67. You are correct.The local meetings are meaningless and in

most unions now Local leaders are appointed,so if one wants to protect their job they better tow the line.
The General membership can yell from the highest roof top. I want Bernie Sanders, they say tough shit we are endorsing Hillary and that is the way it works folks.

[lewebley3]

169. Unions are supporting Hillary, the are not part of the 1%

[TM99]

173. Their leadership most certainly is

corrupt, establishment types, so not surprising really.

[lewebley3]

194. Then Sanders leadership is corrupt too!

[TM99]

197. Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberry.

A very weird non-answer.

All I can do is laugh.

[lewebley3]

198. Typical Sanders person, Just a lot of nonsense: Your guy is losing

[kacekwl]

52. EXACTLY !!

Then when the shit goes south she can say she was against it.

[acuity24]

159. Exactly!

once you've been marinated in big oil , it just keeps oozing out of your skin.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

163. Yup, typical Hillary...afraid to take a principled stand.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[roguevalley]

77. she helped create it. she hates us. That's the last straw for me.

NEVER. I will not vote for her but it won't matter anyway. I live in Alaska. Voting for her will be like holding the blade against my neck when they cut my throat.

[imthevicar]

135. Well this prover She can't walk the walk!

[lewebley3]

168. Hillary should not take advise from Sanders supporters

[TM99]

171. Why?

She might actually be a better person, more trustworthy & honest, and a far better candidate than she is now thanks to the Third Way, establishment & corporate funded, and focus group driven polling.

[lewebley3]

196. I don't think Sanders people are better people: Just the opposite

The Sanders people hope ,is to attack and bring down Hillary,
their guy is very limited.
Hillary is her own person, the nonsense about the Third Way,
and corporate funded, is just more Sanders left wing attacks.

Sanders supporters have been trying undermine Hillary from
the beginning with these lies. Its know wonder with millions
of Sanders money that a focus group could have picked up
on the Sanders campaign fraud.

Its, No matter: Hillary and Dem's no how to fight and lead
this country: Sanders just know how to whinny about it.

[TM99]

199. You must be fresh out of high school

with the logic and communication you peddle here.

Clinton brings herself down with lies and double messages year after year.

Hillary is a founding member of the damned DLC!

Facts are now lies in the bizzarro world of the DU Clinton supporters.

Yes, Clinton is definitely a great leader who was way behind the curve on LGBT civil & marriage rights, survived snipe fire in Bosnia, and is a great moderate...no I mean progressive....no wait, she is a moderate again this week.

[lewebley3]

200. You talk like you in High school: All you got is calling Hillary names

Hillary is a fantastic leader

[TM99]

201. Odd, really,

there is not a single 'name calling' of Clinton in my post.

Bye!

[lewebley3]

202. Your post was nothing but slander against Hillary

[Jester Messiah]

204. Another sign that Hillary doesn't support American labor...

She can't even hire proper English speakers for her shill ops.

[lewebley3]

205. More nonesene: The Dem party is made up of mostly workers

[Jester Messiah]

206. May I speak to a supervisor, please? [nt]

[Cassiopeia]

2. It's the gold standard of trade agreements.

Come April or May she'll be the rock behind the TPP, just like she has been for the last 4 years.

[tecelote]

19. Absolutely.

It's what she's paid to do.

[Fast Walker 52]

41. After she locks up the nomination?

Wouldn't surprise me one bit

[Cassiopeia]

92. Locks it up or concedes,

her support for it will return once the primary is done.

[99th_Monkey]

121. I'm sure there will be "new information" she "discovers", to justify it though. nt

[BeanMusical]

136. Yep...

It's astonishing that some people can't see right through her obvious bullshit.

[Plucketeer]

83. Hillaryous

isn't it?

[pangaia]

3. Slip slidin' through the cracks.

[erronis]

46. It's a slippery slope back into their pockets (or cracks....)

[stillwaiting]

4. She wants to be "our" CHAMPION.

She's ridiculous.

[UglyGreed]

5. Well I'm

shocked

[virtualobserver]

7. When has she ever led?

She doesn't offend the corporations. She will be a liberal as the polls say that she must be.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. And Netanyahoo's bestest buddy.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Of course she won't

since she actually supports it.

[Buzz cook]

9. She's kinda busy

Running for president.

[ruffburr]

10. Hasn't been-

Elected yet and already screwing the people, Must be thinking ahead

[Aerows]

11. She's determined to be the first President

to preemptively screw us over.

[restorefreedom]

13. bazinga! sad but true. nt

[restorefreedom]

12. in other words, she supports it

more lip service. why am i not surprised?

[Autumn]

14. Why would she lobby against the "gold standard of trade"?

Really do they think we are that stupid.

[Paka]

97. The "gold standard of trade"...

...that she helped write!

[AzDar]

15. She's so fucking dishonest.

[Segami]

16. LOL! - "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I am a PROGRESSIVE who gets things done!"

OK,.....so now you say this:

“..I will state my position,” but not actively lobby against it..."

WHAT??....What kind of hoodwinking double-talk tripe are you trying to pass here as 'PROGRESSIVE'...?

[AzDar]

18. Spot-on.

[840high]

68. The same as on every issue.

[roguevalley]

78. reminds me when she went to NASDAQ and told them to

and i quote, 'Knock it off'. How well that worked ....

she is pathetic.

[BeanMusical]

137. I didn't recall that she said "Knock it off" so to be sure I searched the

Debate transcript:

You know, I - I respect the passion an intensity. I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 - before the big crash that we had - and I basically said, "cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors."

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/13/cnn-democratic-debate-full-transcript/

Well she sure represented Wall Street instead of the vast majority of her constituents. Cut it out? Yeah, she's pathetic and a pathological liar.

[tex-wyo-dem]

89. She's raised triangulation to a fine art...

And she beats us over the head with it.

[Paka]

105. +1

[MrMickeysMom]

17. Well, why the hell not, then?

You either want to see it go through, don't care if it does or do NOT want to see it go through.

Fence sitting ≠ leadership on this issue.


?quality=100&strip=info&w=500

[Art_from_Ark]

147. It's the Pander Bear!

[SoapBox]

20. She's big money, big corporation, big Bankster and Billionaire...

Of course she will not lobby against this disaster.

Trust her on anything?

Not.

[tecelote]

21. Wow! Where are the Hillary supporters defending her stance?

Mute.

[bahrbearian]

23. Group meeting at the other site?

[Ed Suspicious]

38. I'm more and more convinced every day that they're nihilists.

[rhett o rick]

126. The Authoritarian Personality. Erich Fromm said it all:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1957/authoritarian.htm

Blind worship of a tough authoritarian leader.

[hopemountain]

133. yes, patronizing to the third letter....

her patronizing tone is what irks me and screams insincerity and manipulation. i have a difficult time listening to her voice. i don't believer there is an honest synapse in her brain or pulse from her heart. total disconnect.

[willvotesdem]

156. And that CACKLE laugh. My dislike of her grows daily.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

164. Posting a link to marxists.org, attacking Democrats

Why am I not surprised?

Well I do got to say one thing. At least you guys are coming clean about what you actually are.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ p.s. no one engages you for the same reason scientists don't engage creationists; pigeon crapping on chessboard, and all that. The real question is why Skinner lets people committed to the destruction of the Democratic Party vomit all over this board.

[rhett o rick]

166. At least I posted a link to an article. You should read it, it won't hurt.

I want to save the Democratic Party from the conservatives that have turned the Party Leadership into ideologically the same as the Republicans in Nixon's time.

Tell me which issues the progressives support that you object to. Let me guess. Anti-progressives think that fracking is wonderful because oil profits take precedence over water quality for the masses. Anti-progressives welcome "Free" Trade Agreements that enhance the powers of the Corps at the expense of the Peoples. We want to end private prisons, you know those that are contributing to Clinton's campaign (can we say quid pro quo). We want to end the wars and decrease the DEfence budget. Fix our crumbling infrastructure. Protect home owners from corrupt banks.

The above is a partial list. Which do you disagree with?

" no one engages you for the same reason scientists don't engage creationists; pigeon crapping on chessboard, and all that. The real question is why Skinner lets people committed to the destruction of the Democratic Party vomit all over this board. "

Really? How utterly childish. But that's all you have apparently. Since you are incapable of holding a decent discussion without resorting to childish insults, on to ignore you go. I have been recommending that progressives put those here that disparage in lieu of having honest discussions, on ignore.

[blackspade]

175. You can still be a Marxist and a Democrat you know.

Back to your red baiting again I see.

Or is there only room in the Party for you and your unfettered capitalist buddies?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

182. I'm "red baiting" in the exact same way...

...that pointing out Trump's racism is "playing the race card".

Hell, I don't even mind communists who are rational and pragmatic. Anyone who wants to work with Democrats against Republicans, I'm all in favor of. We can end up disagreeing if the country ever gets to the point where Democrats are the bone-fide center right of the body politic of the U.S. instead of center left.

But that's clearly not what happens on the DU. The non-stop insults used against the majority of Democrats using phrases of demonization, like "authoritarian", betrays the real intent. And when I read screeds from people who think it might be good for Republicans to win, so as to somehow teach the public a lesson, it really makes me wonder whether the DU has gone completely off the rails.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

184. Interesting that you would even make that kind of comparison.

You do realize that you can be both a communist and a Democrat correct?
And I have never felt insulted or attacked as a lifelong Democrat by accusations of authoritarianism.
Mainly because I am not an authoritarian. If you feel that such a phrase insults the party as a whole then likely the 'insult' hits too close to home for you rather than for the party.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

185. If you like your cognitive dissonance...

...of pretending to yourself that you are both communist and democratic, no one is going to stop you. But I think it's important to point out that the Democratic party isn't communist, has never been communist, and in fact has always been the intelligent opposition to communism in the world.

My point was really just to point out (apparently too subtly for some) the inane hypocrisy of trying to attack Democrats as "authoritarian", by citing a communist website. Apparently I need to point out to you (because you don't seem to be all that familiar with history) that communism is an ideology responsible for at bare minimum 100 million people's deaths in various authoritarian regimes it spawned, the Soviet Union, China, Kampuchea, among others. In fact, there isn't a single communist takeover anywhere that didn't end up instantly turning into an authoritarian dictatorship, a pretty remarkable record until you realize that authoritarianism and dehumanization is baked into that ideology at its very core. Even terrorists aren't as bad as communists, much less teabaggers; you have to get to NAZI levels of evil before you find a right-wing equivalent.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ p.s. Nor am I "insulted or attacked" by the people on this site who are throw around childish insults that are CLEARLY targeted at the majority of Democrats (and their runaway preference for the presidential nomination), any more than I am by hearing a three year old throwing a tantrum. Mostly I just proverbially pat people on the head, and tell them they're adorable!

[blackspade]

187. LOL that was a yummy word salad.

Obviously your understanding of history is soft.
So what is communism exactly? Is it the state regulated capitalism or the serfdom economies that have used the name 'communism?'
Communism is the collective ownership of production. None of the murdering dictatorships that you listed, Soviet Union, China, Kampuchea, etc were communist economies.
And I would be careful about throwing around statements like "authoritarianism and dehumanization is baked into that ideology at its very core." The same can be said for capitalism as well.

So I'll pass on your bullshit red baiting and demonization of an economic theory and political movement that in both the US and Europe gave us 40 hr work weeks, child labor laws and other social advances in conjunction with trade unions and socialists.

As for the post-script of your post; Fail. Clumsiest. Insult. Ever. Bravo!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

192. So when faced with incontrovertible proof...

...of the authoritarian nature of every single regime that has resulted from a communist revolution, you descend into sophistry, trying to claim that communist regimes aren't communist. You then try to ascribe moderate regulatory adjustments within capitalism to be triumphs of communism, which rejects free trade completely, and would destroy the system if it could.

This reminds me of Lewis Carol: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

I'm not writing with a "word salad". Rather, faced with a complete collapse of your position, you've just chosen to try to redefine words to the point of meaninglessness.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

193. Another failed response from you.

Typical.

Your grasp of economics and history are sorely lacking.
I'll leave you to your illusions.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

195. That's adorable...

...the way you try to use big words, and talk about "economics and history" as if you knew anything about them.

So let me pat you on your head, pinch your chubby little cheeks, and send you on your way to play with your toys.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

210. Snort.

Can't argue on the merits, so you stoop to insults.
Come back when you actually understand history and economics.

Ta, Ta!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

213. You're the little guy who can't argue merits

So you talk about leaving me to my "illusions" (about Communist dictatorships being authoritarian), and other comments that clearly show that you really really really think I (and the majority of Democrats) are all just big poopie heads.

And in response I said you're adorable. What else is there to say?

Oh! Here's something to say. Unless, God forbid, she is shot or something, Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. Enjoy your irrelevance.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[blackspade]

215. Now your getting pathetic with your childish insults.

But please proceed governor....

[LiberalLovinLug]

179. Its based on a research book called The Authoritarian Specter, by Bob Altemeyer

It has nothing to do with that website. But that's another Conservative Authoritarian mindset; dismiss quickly anything that contradicts your narrow view of the world.

Here are a couple more links describing the book for you that are not from anything calling itself marxist:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-conservatism-social-science-findings-about-conservatism/5452654

http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=388

[ConservativeDemocrat]

183. I read your links. Cobbled together gobbldygook...

....of non-peer reviewed studies and argument by assertion.

And even they didn't declare that the 70% of Democrats who don't prefer Senator Sanders are "authoritarian". That's your own made up bullshit.

But what was hilarious was that your second link is making up unsubstantiated crap about the left wing as it does the right:

Left wing authoritarianism
Altmeyer (1996) developed a measure of left wing authoritarianism--that is, a left wing variant of right wing authoritarianism. Left wing authoritarianism comprises the same three clusters of items as right wing authoritarianism; however, individuals who report left wing authoritarianism embrace institutions that want to overthrow the existing powers; they do not embrace the establishment. Specifically, the first set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism submission, relates to the inclination of individuals to submit to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment. The second set of items, called left-wing authoritarianism aggression, refers to the tendency of individuals to espouse aggression and violence towards the establishment. The third set of items, called left-wing conventionalism, refers to the inclination of individuals to comply with the norms and standards of authorities who want to overthrow the establishment.

See yourself in this? I wonder.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ This, by the way, is why so many academics don't think the social sciences are really science.

[LiberalLovinLug]

211. Yes I saw that.

But if one understands what Authoritarianism is, there is a reason that the left wing authoritarian is reduced to a paragraph. Of course there are always individuals that do not fit the mold. But the general mold is the correlation between those with conservative beliefs and the authoritarian outlook.

BTW researchers replicated the study in 2014 to specifically examine this aspect and came to much the same conclusions.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/95405576/chasing-elusive-left-wing-authoritarian-examination-altemeyers-right-wing-authoritarianism-left-wing-authoritarianism-scales

Chasing the Elusive Left-Wing Authoritarian: An Examination of Altemeyer's Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Left-Wing Authoritarianism Scales

From the National Social Science Journal; 2014, Vol. 43 Issue 1

From the abstract:

The results largely replicated Altemeyer's (1996) research. The results showed no evidence of high scorers on the LWA Scale. Furthermore, the results confirmed Altemeyer's typology of authoritarian styles, demonstrating that right-wingers and wild-card authoritarians tend to score higher on measures of authoritarian aggression and lower on at least one measure of epistemic closure relative to non-authoritarians and left-wingers.


But seriously, you don't even need a study to come to the conclusion that Conservatives are obviously more authoritarian in their thinking. Many Conservatives would call themselves religious, both Christian and Muslim etc.. compared to the more secular left wing. Most Cons hold highly to strict Law and Order, and a patriarchal family unit. All of those institutions are clearly organized in a top-down authoritarian structure. Then again, I don't expect an actual Conservative to accept this research as the the authoritarian mindset blocks out or disputes any information that in any way chips away at the omnipotent world view they cling to.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

214. Okay, so to summarize your thinking

Conservatives are "authoritarian" because they're religious, and religions are "authoritarian" because they're conservative. Talk about circular reasoning.

I actually won't argue with you that there are tons of stupid Republican racists out there, who care little for fact, and nearly everything for tribal identity. That's easy to discern from a quick jaunt to DU's sister site, the discussionist. However that exact same extremist behavior is in evidence all over the DU as well - just not from the moderates of the party. It's all the extreme left here. The Horseshoe theory explains this kind of behavior rather well. At least as well as the self-invented, hard evidence free, research you're so obviously a fan of.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[LiberalLovinLug]

216. Not really

Its more that authoritarians tend to be right wing conservatives because, whether a religious institution or a "black and white" viewing political one, it satisfies their need for someone to tell them what to do, show them easy answers for right from wrong. And also pushes the idea that everyone else that isn't like them is out to get them and thus the need for a strong police, a massive armed forces and even a secret Stasi like NSA program is fine if their political leaders tell them it will protect them from the "other". It foments a circling of the wagons mentality where even facts themselves cannot penetrate because their wagon circle is made up of dominoes and they know if one rigid belief falls, it all might.

And it also is evident in their need to have to always reassure themselves that "don't worry, everyone else to their left is living in a fantasy world, but I am a member of the Reality Based Community."

But, I have to say that I respect you for participating and showing your colours, right down to your handle, on this site which tends to lean left. You probably get vented on more than most from liberal leaning members (including me..sorry).

[ConservativeDemocrat]

218. Actually, I'm actually quite respectful of the adult lefties of the party.

By "adult", I mean people who will take allies where they can get them to move forwards on the things we agree on, rather than use politics merely as a way of getting that sweet feeling moral superiority, as a substitute for putting in any of their own effort. You ask the majority of the screamers on DU what they've done themselves to get the more liberal candidate in any race elected (the primary or the general), and most of them then hem and haw, and say its someone else's problem. The irony is that I've almost certainly done more for the left than basically all of them, including getting two Democrats (Wyden and Merkley) elected (both of whom know me on a first name basis), even though I disagree with them about the NSA, among other things.

I don't recall saying anything bad about Senator Sanders, for instance. Hell, I even called out MokTohRah for bashing Bernie in a way that seemed patently unfair.

But at the end of the day, DU is what it is. Entertainment for extremists. Not activism.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[LiberalLovinLug]

219. The Democrats have a large tent

A Dem Con is a unique breed on DU and probably needed as a balance to the more anarchist lefties in the party. I was quite insulting to you. I appreciate that you bit your tongue and replied in a respectful manner.

I just don' t traditionally give quarter to anyone proud to be called "conservative". This is based on the usual boorish, entitled, and lets face it, clownish behaviour of others that crow about being conservatives, from Republicans to Faux News pundits. But more than that its the political philosophy of the more libertarian bent; dog eat dog, I'm all right Jack mentality. That today's Capitalist society works great if you have money, because then you have the power to influence politicians to enact tax cuts and deregulation to make you even more money. You can own news media corps to further your message. And prevent stories from airing. (Like publicity for Bernie Sanders who is a threat) Meanwhile you can lobby those politicians to make up that money by cutting back on food stamps or SS.

It boils down in simple terms to either believing in the trickle down theory, where like feudal times, you hand all the money, including tax money from the poor and middle class, to the very wealthy in the form of tax cuts, who don't need it, in hopes they will re-invest in factories and industry to employ those poor shmucks that are desparate for work now that all the support programs have been cut.

or

You still encourage entrepreneurship. Its still a capitalist world after all. But, like in the 50's, society is healthier, happier, and overall wealthier if wealth is more evenly distributed. That, like in Scandinavian countries, most industry is capitalist private, but things that are fundamental like healthcare are seen as a right for citizens rather than a privilege. And also that things like single payer is cheaper because money is pooled together to reduce costs. Where, because of taxes going not to the wealthy on a hope and a prayer, it goes into things that benefit the most people, like healthcare, education, home ownership rebates, SS, job training, etc.. That when you create a society where there is hope...for the poor to have enough social support to lift them up to tax paying middle class, and the middle class have more real money spend because they don't have to worry about healthcare, education, etc., where more people are contributing in society, you have a stronger nation overall.

Basically I feel it works better to think more in community terms, lending a hand to your neighbour to lift up everyone, rather than bowing down to the ultra rich .1% in perpetual hopes for handouts. That they will not simply stash this extra money that you've given them through your taxes in off-shore havens, and actually give you a job.

Its interesting that in some ways both spectrums want the same thing. Personal freedom. The left views that as paying a bit more tax in order to pool citizens money to get the cheapest healthcare, education, and also for things like having a national oversight for food safety, or financial regulation, weather disasters, and defense. And that once those necessities are taken care of in this more inexpensive way overall, a family can have less worry, and concentrate on investing in things that will make them happy.

Conservatives seem to think personal freedom is "leave me alone!". That works great if you already have money. But overall as the trend continues of the rich getting richer, and the poor poorer, society becomes unbalanced, with more social problems. Its just not a healthy trend.

And that over the last 40 years the pendulum has swung so far to the right that if one agreed there should be a balanced approach to governance, the left needs to catch up greatly and need all the help they can get. They have almost zero influence on policy. Look at Obama's appointments. Everything is stacked in favor of the conservative wealthy class. And even though the left are most often right (Iraq war, deregulation of Wall Street, NSA overreach), they are ignored by the conservative MSM, to further conservative influence.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

220. I wouldn't be on the DU if I weren't a Democrat

I'd say that the chief difference between the wings of our party have more to do with what I see as reflexive hostility toward religion, a belief that every problem (even foreign problems) are somehow America's fault, anger at the business community, anger at the US military, and at times a rosy-colored view of history. (The FDR/Truman/Eisenhower 1950s were indeed dream times for white Americans - why any white American male, no matter how uneducated could go right out and immediately get a good paying union job. But other people around the world, and even in the US, remember those times with considerably less pleasure.) And due to Democrats' divorce from the Dixiecrat constituency (the Voting Rights Act and the immediate follow on of the GOP Southern Strategy), even if you believe that making appeals to moderates in the business community is some moral betrayal of the Democratic brand, from a purely pragmatic perspective, it is literally the only way we can remain a major party.

Unionized racist southern FDR Democrats in the 1940s and 1950s became Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, and are Trump Republicans today. And personally, I don't care how poor those "Birt Certifict" sign waving teabagger morons are, or how much they're suffering from lack of unions, I would much rather have Democrats keep our centrist/conservative focus on keeping government mostly out of the way of business, than pander to them.

Pandering won't work anyway. They'll never vote for a black man or a woman of any color. They're not exactly deep thinkers.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[hopemountain]

186. seriously? your money hungry ilk are destroying the democratic party

by sleeping with selfish republicans. and, i'm pretty sure it is with conscious cold heart-ted intent.

[AlbertCat]

58. They're busy having a "Bernie doesn't get black people" day today.

If you disagree... you're racist, BTW.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

64. As memes go it is dead in the water.

It can be argued here on DU, but nobody really gets it, IMHO.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. Ha!

[rhett o rick]

117. We need a spy over there. They have lists. And they monitor the Bernie Sanders Group

and alert every chance they get.

[BeanMusical]

142. Eventually someone will spill the beans and show us interesting screenshots.

It pretty much always happens at secretive boards after a certain amount of time. A lot of paranoia starts taking place as the number of members gets higher. And after a while there are more and more dissatisfied people, they wonder why they can't access the secret forum(s). Last I've heard you need permission from Bill or another admin to be able to read and post in the Grumble, if it's still called that way. Before they batten down the hatches in a hurry to stop people from accessing the Grumble and a little later The Political Pub back in September a couple of peeps had time to read some interesting stuff. Some of them have posted kind words about Skinner and EarlG too over there. This thing will eventually blow up in their faces.

[rhett o rick]

165. Yes I agree. Those types of groups always implode. It usually turns out to be

a fight to establish the biggest bully. And their plots are sad but funny. I heard that they are conspiring (yup the "c" word) to control MIRT and the host forum. I say go for it. They might be successful in suppressing 10% or 15% of Sen Sanders posts, but that won't really have an impact. It's actually a microcosm of what is happening in politics. One group seeks freedom and liberty and the other seek authoritarian rule.

Big Money and Wall Street may be able to buy the presidency for Clinton, but it won't stop the Populist Movement.

[William769]

217. We go it handeled

No need to worry your pretty little ahead about it.

We offer different memberships to different people as many sites do.

I am not worried in the least about anything blowing up in our faces. I also thank you for your concern about my website.

Have a nice day.

[BeanMusical]

221. "We offer different memberships to different people as many sites do."

Thank you for admitting that part of what I had predicted months ago is already happening.

[wilsonbooks]

39. They are waiting on their talking points.

[rhett o rick]

113. Please, please put them on ignore. nm

[SheilaT]

22. Hey, at least that's consistent with going to the NASDAQ and telling them to knock it off.

And we all know how amazingly effective that was!

[rhett o rick]

116. Hey, hey please be more accurate. She never said "knock it off".

She said "stop it'. Big difference.

No truth to the rumor that they responded with a laugh and gave her a check for $100,000.

[a2liberal]

144. Hey now, please be accurate in your corrections!

Don't mislead people! She didn't say "stop it", she said "cut it out" (see post 137)

Wouldn't want to be accused of misrepresenting her position...

[rhett o rick]

162. I don't like to be corrected so, "cut it out".

JK I stand corrected.

[George II]

24. Will Sanders "lobby against TPP"?

[Bryce Butler]

27. From his website

During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During the coming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations, Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

[LiberalArkie]

28. So who voted for TPP fast track in the Senate? (List)

[guillaumeb]

30. He has already stated that he will.

It didn't take long for Sen. Bernie Sanders to bash the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal the United States reached on Monday alongside 11 other countries in the Pacific Rim.

"I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs," Sanders said in a statement Monday morning shortly after the deal was announced. "Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multinational corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense."

In his Monday statement, Sanders vowed to fight the deal in the Senate. The deal is expected to be a flashpoint for heated debate in Congress over the next few months.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trade-deal-bernie-sanders-reacts-214426#ixzz3r890z7Wx

[roguevalley]

81. ah George arrives. :)

[George II]

99. And your point is?

[BeanMusical]

143. Hi George!

I see that Hillary still has that nasty dandruff problem. Maybe she could use some of the stuff in your can, unless it's dangerous of course.

[polly7]

150. LOL!

Coffee up the nose, a great way to start the day!

[BeanMusical]

153. Lol, sorry!

[polly7]

154. It's ok!

The burning is gone now! (But I'm still laughing .. that gif bugs the shit out of me.)

[BeanMusical]

155. I know what you mean.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. And water is wet.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. ..

[yallerdawg]

29. I wonder what the leader of the Democratic Party will do?

Oh, he won't lobby against it, either!

Because some Democrats are looking out for the future of America and all Americans - not just that one job centering on "Vote for me!"

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Was anybody naive enough to think she would?

I still don't know why she doesn't support it. Did I miss something?

[SusanCalvin]

42. "I still don't know why she doesn't support it."

Because she thinks saying she doesn't will get her votes.

[Jack Rabbit]

74. That reason doesn't count

But I suspect you're right.

[Android3.14]

32. Screw that.

[KansDem]

33. What does that mean?

"'State my position,' but not actively lobby against it."

[dorkzilla]

62. She’s intentionally talking out of both sides of her mouth

Its a signal to her corporate overlords that she will do their bidding, or at the very least not offer any obstacles to their dreams of world domination.

[hughee99]

76. She wants you to know she's against it

But won't do anything to stop it. If she truly doesn't like it, and intends to be the next president, she should do whatever she can to stop it.

Basically, you're getting lip service and a political calculation instead of actual leadership.

[lame54]

34. I'm fucking sick of these assholes...

"This is simply another reason why I can’t vote for her, in the primary or general election


How the hell is that going to help us if they pout like children and don't vote?

I read this more and more by Bernie supporters

I'm for Bernie too but if he falls short I sure as hell AM VOTING TO KEEP THE REPUGS OUT

[tex-wyo-dem]

93. I agree with you in principal, but...

She sure is making it hard.

I just simply don't trust her and this just further underscores my distrust.

[coyote]

127. Why should I vote for a candidate

That is actively working against my best interest. And yes Hillary falls in that category. This lesser of 2 evils voting is bullshit. This country is already in the shithole and voting for her is just prolonging its demise.

[lame54]

160. watch last nights debate...

And there is your answer

[coyote]

188. Well I guess it´s all in what you want

do you prefer to be screwed slowly or screwed hard? Clinton maybe superficially better, but again the choice is picking a lesser of 2 evils. We´re screwed either way.

I did not vote for Obama in 2004/2008. One look at his record and I knew his "change you can believe in" was a line of bullshit....and he sure did not disappoint. Sure he threw a couple of bones to us. However, caucusing with the Republicans, for example, to get Fasttrack approval for TPP was pretty disgusting.

When I look at Hillary´s history, it will be just a continuation of the same. Past history is always a good predictor of future performance. I simply cannot vote for someone that will work against me, and Hillary will.

[mmonk]

35. I didn't expect her to.

We are opponents in economics for America. Her followers cannot grasp it. They say we are unreasonable. Whether that is so or not is irrelevant. That's really all it is. A disagreement but one bigger with huge consequences. So be it. We'll move forward to the next phase I suppose.

[Persondem]

36. So since the TPP text is now available, please point me to the exact sections

you object to.

I have read a few sections and there doesn't seem to be anything really terrible in it. Unless you like tariffs by the thousands, child labor, indentured servitude and having endangered species go extinct.

[GoneFishin]

40. Show me one passage that actually has an enforcement mechanism with teeth to stop any

of those things.

I am not interested in any "we will endeavor to...", "we will encourage...", "we will discourage ...", "we will emphasize...", "we will recommend...", "we will attempt...", "we will suggest...",
or any other meaningless fluffy kumbaya language.

[SusanCalvin]

43. Oh, I'm sure the corporate tribunals,

of, by, and for the corporations, have plenty of enforcement mechanisms.

[GoneFishin]

49. I know it. The one-sided language is a farce. But here's the kicker. Even though the

language is already vague, wishy-washy and non-binding on all matters that would help average people, they still put this at the end :

"Non-Application of Dispute Settlement
No Party shall have recourse to dispute settlement under
Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) for any matter arising under this Chapter."

[SusanCalvin]

54. Hey, can't have peons having their day in court,

even if it is a corporate tribunal.

[DhhD]

181. Why not ask Hillary Clinton about the enforcement of tribunal decisions?

Clinton is going to be primaried next week. It will not be a Bengahzi hearing. She will answer to her record instead of her supporter answering for her.

[Persondem]

47. Chapter 28, section 19

Link here.


This section allows a panel to award financial compensation or a suspension of trade benefits should one country fail to live up to its obligation to follow the provisions of the TPP. Basically one country would "sue" the other country with adjudication to follow.

[GoneFishin]

51. I know there is enforcement to help them screw us, I meant the humanitarian causes you cited.

But technically, you got me. I was looking for enforcement mechanisms that prevented them from screwing us.

[Persondem]

56. Look, I get that past trade deals have not been all that well done. But I do think

that any thing (and especially any person) should be judged for what it is. I still cannot understand how anyone can judge anything in ignorance. If people do that to other people it's condemned as prejudice and bigotry, but somehow that's ok for the TPP.

I am no expert, but I think that chapter deals with the grievance procedure for the whole shebang. If, then, a country is not living up to the standards of the TPP then another country can "sue" for relief. As near as I can tell, that covers the humanitarian factors as well.

[GoneFishin]

69. I respect that you are trying to look at it fair handedly. That's great. But my opinion, which

is based on experience, is that the lopsided unfair language would never have been accepted if there had been even the slightest bit of representation for the American public. Which ties in perfectly with the fact that the entire process was kept secret and no balancing voices were allowed.

Here is an example of the language which purports to benefit the greater good :

CHAPTER 23 DEVELOPMENT
Article 23.1: General Provisions
1. The Parties affirm their commitment ... that seeks to improve welfare, reduce poverty, ...
2. The Parties acknowledge the ... promoting inclusive economic growth ...
3. The Parties acknowledge that economic growth and development contribute to achieving ...
4. The Parties also acknowledge that effective ... contribute to sustainable ...
5. The Parties recognize the potential for joint development ... to achieve sustainable ...
6. The Parties also recognise that activities carried out ... of joint development activities.


Chapter 23 goes on and on endlessly using vague, non-commital terms to promote the greater good, then ends with this gem:

Article 23.9 : Non-Application of Dispute Settlement

No Party shall have recourse to dispute settlement under Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement)
for any matter arising under this Chapter.


This entire chapter has no substance whatsoever. It was inserted for show.

[Persondem]

91. Ok, good find. I like that you actually read the thing.

You are exactly right about that section being exempt from the adjudication process, but here's my take on it. Development is about the future. It just might not be fair to hold a country's feet to the fire for not fulfilling a goal when their circumstances change. For example, once TPP is in effect, Malaysia says it wants to get it's literacy rate up to 95% for females in 5 years. But then it's economy crashes or a violent civil war breaks out. Not fair if Malaysia gets "sued" over not meeting the goal. Such action could have a deleterious effect on planning. Why plan, if you screw up you can get in trouble. This section is just about guiding thinking for ways to improve things beyond TPP and the present.

Now if you find such language in most sections then that's another story.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. Is that really an enforcement mechanism?

Whose army will make us pay any fines ordered by an ISDS panel, even if we ignore the whole fucking thing, as we should?

[GoneFishin]

103. That's beside the point. The "money" comes from American taxpayers and goes to corporations.

The same group of right wing Democrats and Republicans who promote and pass this turd of a fake trade bill will have permanent cover when they want to :

1) Drag their feet on environmental, regulatory, revenue, and food safety bills.
2) Funnel more taxpayer dollars to their corporate friends under the pretense that some law interferes with their profits.

They already side with big corporation lobbyists on everything. This will just give them even more cover to keep screwing over the American public.

[Jack Rabbit]

109. Let me propose some TPP ideas

These are proposed on the assumption that the paid-for crooks in Congress will pass the damn thing.

1. Vote only for politicians dedicated to scuttling the free trade deals now under consideration.
2. Boycott any corporation that even talks out loud about taking the US (or anyone else) to an ISDS panel.
3. Rufuse to pay taxes that will fund implementation of the trade deals.

If this is class warfare, let's make the most of it.

Whatever they plan to do to us, I volunteer to be the first casualty.

[Persondem]

120. Why does any country enter into any trade agreement? If it is not going to follow the

provisions of the agreement why make a bad name for yourself?

Of course no army is going to force the US to pay any fines but other countries could choose to re-impose tariffs on our goods which would make our merchandise less competitive in their markets.

[Jack Rabbit]

124. The best thing to do would be to not enter a bad trade agreement

I don't feel any obligation to abide by this agreement negotiated by corporate crooks and then passed by their political stooges without any input from the people (which, of course, they didn't want).

There is no benefit to most Americans under the TPP. It's time for us to put our bodies on the gears and wheels of the odious machine and tear it down.

[Persondem]

158. So along with that nice bag of generalities not based on the actual document

you are saying that you don't want a means to reduce child labor, reduce indentured or forced labor, and a way to help endangered species via a CITES enforcement mechanism.

[Jack Rabbit]

172. I don't want a way for artificial persons to make an end run around democatic governments

and cry to an unelected panel of corporate shysters when they don't realize expected profits (a benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue to it . . . is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement). That is the gist of Chapter 28.

The other matters can be addressed without this horsepucky. What would Adam Smith say about a corporation suing for "expected" profits? There must be an earthquake in the vicinity of his resting place.

A corporation is not a human being. It has a charter from the state, not a birth certificate. It has what rights we give them. It is not entitled to human rights.

If a corporation wants a profit, it has every right to manufacture a safe product and put it on the market at a reasonable price in competition with other similar manufactured goods made in the market or even some that are as radically different as a solar panel is to a barrel of oil that accomplish the same thing.

By a safe product, I mean one that that doesn't harm the end user if used as directed, either as an individual or as a member of society or the biosphere. Yes, that means the state has the right to ban the use of tobacco products or even petroleum products, and that the poisoners at Philip Morris or the polluters at ExxonMobil should not be able to have a a private system of justice at its disposal in order to seek a more favorable judgment than one it might get in a real court.

I also don't think it proper for politicians who are guilty of taking bribes generous campaign contributions from corporate officers and high ranking corporate employees, even acting in the fictitious name of the corporation itself, to pass judgment on a radical document that upsets the world's political and legal order by granting artificial persons the right to realize expected profits, something that no reasonable person would expect to find in a state of nature. The majority of our congressmen, who punitively represent us, are bought and paid for by the very legal entities who stand to benefit from a document which they negotiated among themselves. If that sounds corrupt, there's a good reason for it.

Yes, I am calling for mass civil disobedience in response to the passage of the TPP and its sinister sister trade deals, TTIP and TISA. I think that would be the just and proper response. Moreover, I call for civil disobedience worldwide and maintain that very few will benefit from these deals and most of us will just be fucked over.

Having said that, there is a little matter I need some help me with. I have read parts of the TPP and perused over others, so I may have missed something that you seem to think is there. So persuade me that I'm all wet. Here's your assignment:

Please tell us how Dred Scott could have brought his complaint before an ISDS panel. Could he have gotten a better judgment there than he got from the Supreme Court in 1857. If Mr. Scott could not have appealed to the ISDS, what provision in the TPP could Mr. Scott have used to argue that he should be set free, how a result in his favor might have been arrived at and how this decision would be enforced under the TPP.

Thank you in advance.

[rhett o rick]

118. You need a lesson on rhetoric. "This section allows" Do you not see that "allows" is not binding?

What if they don't choose to seek compensation. It's their choice.

If these countries are forced to introduce safeguards similar to our country then what would make it so enticing for all the hundreds of manufactures to move their businesses over seas? THE ANSWER IS THAT THOSE COUNTRIES WON'T FOLLOW THE AGREEMENT AND NO ONE WILL PROSECUTE THEM. No one is looking out for the 99%.

[Persondem]

119. Allow can mean a lot of things. Could you give me the exact location or quote please? nt

[BeanMusical]

145. Here's a good article for a start:

Chris Hedges: TPP Is the Most Brazen Corporate Power Grab in American History

It's worse than any of us feared.

The release Thursday of the 5,544-page text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a trade and investment agreement involving 12 countries comprising nearly 40 percent of global output—confirms what even its most apocalyptic critics feared.

The TPP removes legislative authority from Congress and the White House on a range of issues. Judicial power is often surrendered to three-person trade tribunals in which only corporations are permitted to sue. Workers, environmental and advocacy groups and labor unions are blocked from seeking redress in the proposed tribunals. The rights of corporations become sacrosanct. The rights of citizens are abolished.

The Sierra Club issued a statement after the release of the TPP text saying that the “deal is rife with polluter giveaways that would undermine decades of environmental progress, threaten our climate, and fail to adequately protect wildlife because big polluters helped write the deal.”

http://www.alternet.org/economy/chris-hedges-tpp-most-brazen-corporate-power-grab-american-history#.Vj-QfdsBoo8.facebook

[Persondem]

157. Whoever wrote that has not read TPP

The following quote is not true at all and obviously a generality not specific to TPP.

"Judicial power is often surrendered to three-person trade tribunals in which only corporations are permitted to sue."

Parties to the agreement (ie countries) have the right to convene arbitration panels (chapter 28). For the USA, that would mean that the Executive Branch would get to participate.

World Wildlife Fund endorsed TPP.

Vague assumptions without links to the text have little merit now that the full text is available.

[GoneFishin]

37. We are nameless, faceless little people up against her billionaire friends. Who is she going to side

with?

[darkangel218]

45. +1

[Major Hogwash]

132. We are but grist for the mill, while Hillary is driving the steamroller.

People in her position don't even bother to think about people like us.
We are simply servants to be ignored, or tipped, and then forgotten about.

[GoneFishin]

139. Well there are so many of us, and we whine incessantly about jobs, and food and stuff.

[think]

48. Of course not. Just like she didn't speak out before Fast Track passed. Then after it passed PRESTO!

She was against it like O'Malley & Sanders....

[SusanCalvin]

55. BINGO.

She is good at maneuvering, I'll give her that.

[GoneFishin]

140. Slippery.

[silenttigersong]

50. NO mention

about tpp on the" DEMOCRATIC FORUM"must have had a contract with candidates,and who would this benefit?

[d_legendary1]

53. So after taking months to conclude that she is against TPP

She'll take a few more months to decide if she will rail against the TPP...Why do these unions keep endorsing her again?

[davidpdx]

134. It is no surprise at all that she came out against the TPP once fast track was past

She stood eerily silent while fast track went through Congress. Then she supposedly came out against it (I say supposedly because I don't believe her).

Again, no big surprise that she is stating that she is against the TPP, yet will do nothing to stop it. If she is such a big player in the party she certainly could talk to some of her former colleagues about voting against it. I guess that's too much to ask if she actually opposes it. She also could have done the same thing with fast-track.

[GoneFishin]

141. It's grade school level politics.

[davidpdx]

146. No, it is a matter of whether a very bad trade deal passes or not

Hillary Clinton says one thing and does another.

[GoneFishin]

167. Agreed.

[GeorgeGist]

189. Especially with all her congessional endorsements.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. Hillary is a true leader for the 1%!

[whatchamacallit]

60. Empty Pantsuit n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

70. I disagree. It's full of something alright.

[whatchamacallit]

82. Haha

[Art_from_Ark]

151. LOL

A "pant suit load"

[sadoldgirl]

61. She is called a leader by some here!

Where is she leading?She is sitting on the fence, so that
once the s#$% hits the fan, she can blame others for
it.
And since the text was published, she has never commented on it
as far as I know.

[AzDar]

72. I would like to know the answer, as well. Utterly baffling.

[ColesCountyDem]

75. That's quite a first post!

[tex-wyo-dem]

96. You nailed it! Welcome to DU!

Btw...don't worry, if a country doesn't follow the "recognitions" of the TPP with regards to labor policy, environmental policy, etc, etc, Hill will just tell them to "knock it off!"

[Paka]

110. Welcome to DU!

Great first post.

[INdemo]

66. This is like General Election already I mean

skip the primary.We have a Republican against a True Democrat.
The choice is clear As far as the clown car full of idiots, well their just taking up time and space and gives the political analysts a way to earn their money with the scripted arguments.

[Historic NY]

71. Why should she, she isn't in the Congress or Senate.

as a former member of the administration it would be unprecedented. I don't think Congress would even invite her to do so.

[jeff47]

112. Well, she is claiming to be a strong leader, and running for a leadership position.

Might behoove her to actually show some of that strong leadership...

[GeorgeGist]

190. Lots if endorsers in Congress ...

One might think they would listen to her.

[stupidicus]

73. SO, no single-payer advocacy, silence on the TPP, extremely likely further warmongering, etc, etc

and her thirdway supporters can't wrap their minds around why so many are disgusted/morally outraged?

[SmittynMo]

79. All excellent points.

I bet I could add a few too. But what really matters is how we can get more people to recognize the REAL facts, including all of the Hillary supporters here, and vote for the REAL candidate? It's pretty obvious who will do better for ALL of us.

Note: I live in MO. While I was out today, I talked to several people asking them about who they would vote for. None of them have heard of Bernie. One guy, (30ish), said he wasn't even going to start looking at candidates until a week before the election. Nice guy, but what an idiot. Exposure does seem to be an issue.

[Truprogressive85]

80. Wow

Funny this coming day after New Democrats at PPI
Were upset about her leftward position

[Phlem]

84. Curious how they're going to spin this.

Seriously, from the department of "No Shit". That's a no brainer.

Thanks Segami!

[Puglover]

88. How?

"Not Good Enough Bernie". And so forth and so on.

[Phlem]

104. Oh that's right, nothing of substance

and logic. I've been at the receiving end of that almost every time. It's the go to plan every time.

I've been totally out of it this week. Should have caught that right away.

[Puglover]

85. I wish I could remember the name of the talking

head that said this on Chris Hayes.

"It is a well known fact that once elected Hillary will resurrect the TPP and make it her own."

I don't know if this is true or just another bloviating pundit but the statement was pretty chilling.

[YOHABLO]

86. This really ticks me off. Can you Hillary supporters not see the writing on the wall? She's a liar.

[floriduck]

87. I made this prediction earlier today

About Hill backsliding and other matters that ruffled the sheep's feathers so they had my post blocked. Way to go Hill! I knew you could do it.

[PatrickforO]

90. This is probably the MAIN reason I'm supporting Bernie and not Clinton.

The TPP is evil.

[Populist_Prole]

125. Damned right

It's going to be the first time ever I'm voting with a single issue ( this one ) as a litmus test.

Through the decades I've become tired of this republican-lite/triangulation, and all this "lesser of two evils" BS.

Evil is evil. Being impoverished, there is no other issue that can assuage it.

[kelliekat44]

94. And she shouldn't. Let Bernie do it. That too will come back to haunt him. nt

[floriduck]

95. Why does your profile show you as

a Bernie supporter? Your comment seems highly inconsistent. Can you explain?

[kelliekat44]

100. Its the system. I do support Bernie but I like Hillary more. nt

[Dawgs]

212. What would come back to haunt Bernie? Lobbying against the TPP?

[cantbeserious]

101. What More Should One Expect From A Card Holding Member Of The 1%

eom

[WillyT]

102. LOL !!!

That's our Hillary...

[azmom]

107. Who's side are you on, Hillary?

Who's side are you on?

[senz]

108. Not the side of the people.

TPP will enrich her donors handsomely. Who will in turn enrich and pave the way for Hillary, handsomely.

It's a closed loop.

[BeanMusical]

148. "Who's side are you on, Hillary?"

Oh, she's on Hillary's side and nobody else's. She's not an idealist, she's an opportunist devoured by ambition determined to get her name in the History Books as The First Female President of The United States of America at all cost. If you're in the way between her and that goal she'll crush you (well, not you personally, more like a general you).

She would dump any cause that she pretends to care for if it could give her an advantage. Her fans might will read this as a proof that I'm a Hater™ but I honestly don't hate HRC. And what she'll do if she gets that post is giving me the creeps, she already has a lot of blood on her hands. Power corrupts and she's already corrupted so it's not going to get better.

[Faryn Balyncd]

111. America needs her to lobby against it, and see that oit is defeated.

[JEB]

114. Empty suit, except for all the corporate $$$$$.

Do we want a Democrat to be president that hastens transnational fascism? I don't.

[whereisjustice]

115. Hillary and Wall Street Dems care more about India, China than USA. Seriously. They are bored

with the US.

India is so smart, India has such good workers, so well trained, blah blah blah

Yeah - well trained to take our jobs at a fraction of a dollar with near zero labor protections.

Hillary and Obama built this piece of shit TPP. It should sink Hillary.

Just imagine the hell she'll create for overworked, underpaid American families as president.

[philly_bob]

122. OP makes excellent point EXCEPT...

writer "can't vote for her, in the primary or general election."

[jfern]

123. She thinks people are stupid enough to not realize that her "position" is just for show

in the primary. We are just the little people for her to lie to.

[BeanMusical]

149. +1 Absolutely.

Sadly there are some people who don't realize that she's a fake though.

[JDPriestly]

128. K&R. Compare to Bernie who is opposed to the TPP and will do all he can to stop its passage.

Bernie is the leader here.

[Major Hogwash]

131. Clearly, now there is a difference between Bernie and Hillary that is real and substantial.

I hope Hillary feels the Bern real quick, or she is going to be post toasties real soon.
There is no way in hell she can climb to the top of the heap with this ball and chain tied around her ankle.
I'm not real hip hop happy with what I am reading about the TPP.
And Hillary had better read the tea leaves soon, or she can forget ever stepping in to the White House, for more than just being a guest!!

[Unknown Beatle]

129. Anyway The Wind Blows

[BeanMusical]

152. ...

[Betty Karlson]

130. Colour me surprised (sarcasm). eom

[Fairgo]

138. Not to worry

She will fly over to a Call centre in New Delhi and tell them in no uncertain terms to cut it out.

[monicaangela]

161. Uh, let's see

finger in air.....which way is the wind blowing today? Has anyone heard of the Clinton Foundation? Imagine how that foundation is going to take advantage of the many horrible provisions that is in this "DEAL." Then imagine, that while this deal was being created, Hillary held one of the highest offices in government an office dedicated to dealing with other countries, SoS.

Can you believe that during her time as SoS she didn't have a full understanding of what was in the TPP and that she and her family didn't examine how some of the provisions in it would help or hinder their foundation? If you say you don't think she ever gave it a thought, I say you are not thinking yourself. Of course she isn't going to lobby against the TPP, her corporate buddies are the authors of it. She knows it isn't popular with the citizens of this nation NOW, so she of course has to take a position of not being in favor of it after repeating over and over again during her time in the office of Secretary of State that it was the equivalent of the GOLD STANDARD when it comes to Agreements...notice I didn't say Treaty's which is actually what it is.

Hillary won't Lobby against the TPP? Is anybody surprised?

[retrowire]

170. Hillary Clinton, will you expand social security?

"I will... Enhance social security."

never forget.

[blackspade]

174. Her prevaricating is painful to watch.

TPP is clearly a corporate giveaway and a detriment to the American economy.
It furthers the capitalist goal to move their production and costs overseas, leaving the public to pick up the pieces that they left behind.

[I hate liars]

176. Hillary's comment leaves open the bizarre possibility

That she is personally against TPP but actually lobbies for it.

Who needs this kind of parsing?

[bvar22]

177. This is painful PROOF....

that when given the choice between helping American Working People...
OR helping her friends in the 1%,
Hillary WILL choose the 1% every time

Think about that before you vote.

[Faux pas]

178. I don't trust a thing

she says about anything. She blows with the breeze.

[jkbRN]

180. Yep,

I cannot and will not vote for her in the general, and yeah maybe a republican will take the White House, but more importantly democrats need to REPRESENT their constituents, which has become become a major problem within the party. And maybe losing the White House will teach them a lesson that they need to learn; stop acting like fucking republicans when you vote and giving the people lip service that is always BULLSHIT.

[Freddie Stubbs]

191. Good for her

It would be unseemly for her to work against one of her former boss' top initiatives.

[Jester Messiah]

203. Of course she won't; her backers wrote most of it! [nt]

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

207. She has "Never bite the hand that feeds you (or, pays you to entertain them)" down pat.

[sabrina 1]

208. She can't, she supports it.

[EndElectoral]

209. She is still "evolving" on the issue