Warren is not my candidate. She's too short-sighted.

[dreamland]

I like Warren, I wanted her to be the VP nominee in 2016. She was especially good in her interviews when she went up against the Wall Street conglomerates but that’s where it ends.

A few years ago, when she and Bernie made headlines voting down the TPP, I was skeptical. Now 3 years later, we see the effects of this deal and how China has stepped in an reaped the benefits of what was proposed in the pact. Lately, she has been touting a new TPP, one that limits relations based on standards. This is forcing the hand of countries who either will not or cannot afford to, which could complicate trade relations more. This seems to be a case of “too little, too late”.

The other issues that has made me realize that she is not my nominee choice is Al Franken.
She has openly berated and call for his resignation and had evenly told him privately to do so. This man, had the intelligence and courage to speak up for us, was railroaded with unproven accusations by his fellow senators. To this day, I’m still angry that a child-molestor sits on our SC, while a man with a prank sits jobless, his reputation damaged, and without support of his peers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/warren-announces-plan-to-negotiate-trade-deals-more-openly/2019/07/29/1b77d564-b19b-11e9-951e-de024209545d_story.html?noredirect=on

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinomarah/2015/05/22/elizabeth-warren-on-the-tpp-bad-for-business/#2e9db6bf685d

https://www.bostonherald.com/2017/12/06/elizabeth-warren-calls-on-al-franken-to-resign/


Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but her short-sightedness means she’s not good at playing the long game.
She stands on high ideals, but in this real world we need a player who can see the outcome of their actions.

So it’s down to Pete or Joe.

[bigtree]

1. Sanders and Warren were right on TPP

...it wasn't just that the pact removed the ability of individuals to sue corporations, leaving oversight and accountability for corporate negligence to an unregulated board.

It's that it was shoved down our throats without ANY details of the pact offered before a 'fast track' vote that all but ensured its passage.

and it was a bad deal:

China and other countries are using unfair practices to gain an advantage against American workers.
by Hillary Clinton - Special to the Press Herald


‘Made in the USA” – that label has always been a mark of quality and pride around the world. American manufacturing has gone through hard times, but we’re working our way back from the worst of the economic crisis. Under President Obama, we’ve saved the auto industry and added over 900,000 manufacturing jobs. Exports are up 40 percent.

But even those hard-won gains are at risk. A stronger dollar, slowing Chinese economy and global economic turbulence mean that workers in industries from steel to auto parts are facing headwinds.

At the same time, China and other countries are using underhanded and unfair trade practices to tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses. When they dump cheap products in our markets, subsidize state-owned enterprises, manipulate currencies and discriminate against American companies, our middle class pays the price. That has to stop.

Ninety-five percent of America’s potential customers live overseas, so closing ourselves off to trade is not a solution. But we have to make sure we are all playing by the same rules. As a senator, I pressured the Bush administration to get tougher on China. As secretary of state, I fought to protect American workers in the global marketplace. As president, my goal will be to win the global competition for the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future.

• First, we have to strongly enforce trade rules to ensure American workers aren’t being cheated. Too often, the federal government has put the burden of initiating trade cases on workers and unions, and failed to take action until after the damage is done and workers have been laid off.

That’s backward: The government should be enforcing the law from the beginning, and workers should be able to focus on doing their jobs. To make sure it gets done, we should establish and empower a new chief trade prosecutor reporting directly to the president, triple the number of trade enforcement officers and build new early-warning systems so we can intervene before trade violations cost American jobs.

We should also hold other countries accountable for meeting internationally sanctioned labor standards – fighting against child and slave labor and for the basic rights of workers to organize around the world.

• Second, we have to stand up to Chinese abuses. Right now, Washington is considering Beijing’s request for “market economy” status. That sounds pretty obscure. But here’s the rub – if they get market economy status, it would defang our anti-dumping laws and let cheap products flood into our markets. So we should reply with only one word: No.

With thousands of state-owned enterprises; massive subsidies for domestic industry; systematic, state-sponsored efforts to steal business secrets; and blatant refusal to play by the rules, China is far from a market economy. If China wants to be treated like a market economy, it needs to act like one.

• Third, we need to crack down on currency manipulation – which can be destructive for American workers. China, Japan and other Asian economies kept their goods artificially cheap for years by holding down the value of their currencies.

I’ve fought against these unfair practices before, and I will do it again. Tough new surveillance, transparency and monitoring regimes are part of the answer – but only part. We need to expand our toolbox to include effective new remedies, such as duties or tariffs and other measures.

• Fourth, we need to stop rewarding U.S. companies for shipping jobs overseas by closing loopholes and ending tax write-offs – and encouraging “in-sourcing” here in America instead. Two HVAC plants in Indiana recently decided to move abroad, costing 2,100 jobs – and likely pocketing a tax deduction.

They’re not just turning their back on the workers and community that supported them for years, they’re turning their back on America. As president, I’ll also end so-called “inversions” that allow multinational businesses to avoid paying U.S. taxes by moving overseas in name only.

• Fifth, we have to set a high bar for any new trade agreements, and only support them if they will create good jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. I opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership when it failed to meet those tests, and would oppose future agreements if they failed to meet that bar.

https://www.pressherald.com/2016/02/23/commentary-if-elected-president-ill-level-the-playing-field-on-global-trade-clinton-says/

[Omaha Steve]

2. This

Perfect answer!

[pnwpolicy]

8. Well said

Good post

[dreamland]

13. This argument is refers a lot about China.

TPP did not include China as a trade partner. Arguments 1 and 4, has always been inclusive in our trade talks and so is nothing new. Argument 5, sounds like a good political summary which is ineffective in creating trade agreements if we set limitations as most countries will agree and then revert to their old pattern of managements.

[Hoyt]

14. Disagree. TPP was important to us. Obama did not deserve the criticism.

And, trump carried out what some of our own candidates wanted.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Lol, that's a new one

I thought this was some sort of gag optometry thread.

Warren’s lack of vision has somehow landed her squarely on the main issue of our time, which is how Big Money has warped the economy and our government. Her whole personal and professional life has led her to where she is and that’s why she is resonating.

[LonePirate]

6. I agree. That's an assessment I never expected to hear about Warren given all of her plans & clarity

[LAS14]

10. This! nt

[comradebillyboy]

4. Indeed TPP was the best multilateral framework to keep

China's feet to the fire on trade and intellectual property matters. As we can see with Trump's failed policies protectionism and tariffs don't work. Warren's protectionist tendencies and lack of any foreign policy positions are the main reasons I'm not on her bandwagon.

[Hoyt]

15. Me too. Her criticism of Obama's Admin and TPP did not help Clinton.

[Sanity Claws]

5. She wears glasses!

[DanTex]

7. What's wrong with a new TPP with labor and environmental standards?

It's exactly the right thing to do.

[Demsrule86]

12. TPP allowed slavery so it was a bad thing...now we need to get away from these sort of agreements

as the countries won't follow any rules that are laid down...and the Trade courts rarely rule in our favor...look at the Mid West and the South...trade agreements have destroyed millions and millions of jobs. We run on bringing back trade agreements, we lose the mid west for sure and do not regain the south in my lifetime...trade agreements have been a win win for the 1% and dismal failure for the average worker. A foreign enemy could not have done a better job of taking out Gary Indiana or Detroit...and there are more...we lost the electronics industry and the garment industry as well...no more TPP's or anything like it. This is a large country with a huge market, we can do better.

[Hoyt]

16. Is Biden running on America First, Economic Patriotism, etc., too? If so, I'd be disappointed.

[dreamland]

9. This goes back to the argument of TPP or NO TPP.

America has always stood on it’s high ideals but the world does not necessarily follow. When a country is poor, they cannot implement such practices. Also the TPP did not include China as a trade partner but rather to build new bridges with other Asian countries, whether the practices were unfair was left to the trading country as that bit is purely political.

[LAS14]

11. Not to say whether I agree or disagree...

.... about the TPP, but isn't it short-sighted to base one's decision on two decisions? But I am going to go do some research on her re Franken. If what you say is the whole story, I'll be unhappy, but won't change my preference.