General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn "Hard Choices", HRC ENDORSED the TPP. So we actually do know her position
She's just playing political games with her "reserving judgment" line. Her book was written after she left the State Department. She should have the guts to come out with her position, instead of pretending that she's reserving judgment.
I'm interested in hearing how she really is reserving judgment and she's evolving or whatever the defense/excuse is.
<snip>
She argued for TPP as secretary of state and in her 2014 memoir, "Hard Choices" but has been noncommittal since. She has said on this issue only that "any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security, and we have to do our part in making sure we have the capabilities and the skills to be competitive."
<snip>
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-questions-for-hillary-clinton/
<snip>
Yet, previously as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."
<snip>
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)why is she pretending she hasn't made up her mind?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is an issue Democratic and progressive voters care about. The only reason not to bring it up is that it will cost her either popular support or campaign funding depending upon the answer.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)besides i care more about scotus than the tpp at this point
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Is she truly the populist her rhetoric now suggests, or is she still the DLCer?
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)if she came out against it, it significantly betters the odds of it passing. Though I suppose as it works the other way around as well, I should be glad that she's obfuscating- at least she's not helping get it passed.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Osmium and iridium are the densest known elements.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)the next President will have 3 years of fast track authority in their first term. It may not be an important issue to you but it is a very important issue to those of us that work in manufacturing.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I wish the the President would stop supporting the bill that the Repubs love so much. Same goes for Bill Clinton. He loved those bad Republican bills.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)for the ultimate example of "the left doing the work for the right".
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)And do we even know when this will be finalized? Perhaps Hillary will be President by the time the process is done, and get the chance to sign this into law or turn it down. Her opinion matters and you should care what her opinion is.
cali
(114,904 posts)this one ain't going away. and how about letting voters know her position on an important issue?
btw, KKKarl almost certainly supports the tpp, so he'd actually be glad to see HRC coming out in support of it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)1/20/2017 is a long ways away. They can't campaign entirely on predicting the future.
I can, however, understand why her supporters want her to ignore it. I see exactly where you're coming from.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)That is being debated today so that they can make an informed and educated decision!!
the nerve of some people.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)if you refuse to answer the questions, you run the risk of looking arrogant.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)tpp may be a done deal by the time election season starts up
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Choice BEFORE something becomes law. Don't they understand that she is running for President and would NEVER have to make decisions or take policy positions before they become law?
Seriously ..... What are these people thinking?
P utrage:
doesn't she usually do what she believes to be popular?
Sobax
(110 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)It's possible she has changed her mind since then. Or that the TPP has been changed. But since we aren't allowed to review it I guess we aren't going to know.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)How would she know what changes have or haven't been made? She says clearly she's waiting to see it and reserving judgment until then.
She's not being honest and she's not being courageous about her position on the TPP.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)People do change their positions; and since we haven't been able to review it (not to mention any changes) since she was last able to review it, it's possible that the text of it worsened.
I should make it clear that I don't think either of those is terribly likely; I think it's most likely as you say - when she believed it to be in her best interest to support it she supported it, and now that it's not - she'd like us all to forget about it.
Bryant
cali
(114,904 posts)not to mention that supporting the TPA as she is, (and she knows this) quite simply, supporting the TPP.
I just don't see how it's possible that she has legitimately changed her mind, given what we know.
Autumn
(45,086 posts)Hillary's stands on a trade agreement that may very well be disastrous to Americans because Rove is asking that question? Got a link or is that just an opinion of yours?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)all youre looking for is the "GOTCHA"
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)This is far more serious than that. We actually need to NOT do trade deals like the TPP. This deal only seems concerned with more 'race to the bottom' on wages and protecting the patents and property of pharmaceutical companies and the entertainment industry.
Oh, and creating an organization that can invalidate the laws of countries or claim damages if those laws hinder trade.
Whoever gets in office should be opposed to these kind of trade deals on principal.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)who will be voting on the TPP. This gotcha doesn't work.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Do you imagine this will be the only trade treaty to be voted on?
I would like to assure the NEXT president does not support these sorts of treaties the way our current president does.
The question is valid.
Autumn
(45,086 posts)Also please explain why that question should not be asked of any Presidential candidate when it involves a trade agreement that has the potential to harm so many hard working Americans that the TPP has. Thanks in advance
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)they can ask but she can refuse to answer as she can neither pass or veto this bill
For months now, America Rising has sent out a steady stream of posts on social media attacking Mrs. Clinton, some of them specifically designed to be spotted, and shared, by liberals. The posts highlight critiques of her connections to Wall Street and the Clinton Foundation and feature images of Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, interspersed with cartoon characters and pictures of Kevin Spacey, who plays the villain in House of Cards. And as they are read and shared, an anti-Clinton narrative is reinforced.
right baits left link http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251407942
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hillary will lose points if she honestly expresses her TPP views, so the neoliberal conserva-dem tactic is to ignore the topic as long as possible. Maybe even call it irrelevant.
So clever
Autumn
(45,086 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)A website that we could be using to go over issues to select a candidate we have people that want to thwart questions in order to shield their personal preferences from scrutiny. This is Democratic Underground, not General-Election. We should discuss, debate and choose a candidate based on the issues.
For me trade policy is a huge issue!
Autumn
(45,086 posts)for that matter.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Desperate and transparent, I might add
Autumn
(45,086 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Autumn
(45,086 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I will not vote for a candidate that supports the TPP. Would that be Hillary? I want to know. But I already know. She doesn't give a single fuck about us and our few remaining manufacturing jobs.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)from the entire spectrum of politics from far right to far left and everyone in between are asking "What is in the TPP, and why can't we see it before it is passed?"
I can't imagine Karl Rove, or anyone with an IQ over room temperature NOT asking questions about everything surrounding the TPP.
frylock
(34,825 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)asking, Unions are asking, some of our Best Democrats are asking.
And since you are so familiar with Rove, could you maybe explain what this means:
important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.
What will a 'level playing field' with Third World pay scales look like to America's Working Class?
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)What will a 'level playing field' with republican pay scales look like to America's Working Class after bernie wins the primary and loses to jeb bush in the general.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'team' are FOR the TPP. That alone ought to be enough for anyone to be against it. You however, seem to be FOR it, as are most Republicans.
I can only judge what is important to you by what you say, who you refer to as an example of support for the TPP. Republicans support it. They support fast tracking this monstrosity. Democrats overall oppose it.
Same thing in 2007. Bush wanted to Fast Track his Trade Bill. Republicans were mostly for it, DEMS STOPPED IT back then and hopefully will do it again when it reaches the House.
I could not care less what Rove 'thinks' or doesn't think. He isn't even on my radar, so find someone with some credibility to help you get this bill passed, because the mere mention of the criminal in an attempt to attack Democrats, simply loses you credibility.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)one may not care what Rove 'thinks' or doesn't think if someone is attempting to smear hillary here they and he are on the same team. and by "you" i dont mean you specificallly it's the general "you"
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)i took out the word you i wasnt accusing you
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)legitimate questions about where they stand on the issues and criticizing them when I believe they are wrong, including those I support when necessary or have supported. That, just for the record, is not smearing a candidate, it is a necessary part of politics.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)it and she's not commenting on it so some have taken it upon themselves to try to influence others
She's just playing political games with her "reserving judgment" line. Her book was written after she left the State Department. She should have the guts to come out with her position, instead of pretending that she's reserving judgment.
you may call it criticizing them when they are " wrong", but this looks like the same thing rove is doing with his american crossroads ads.
wait til she has made a statement about the tpp before telling us what she thinks about the bill she didnt write and can neither pass or veto
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)transpires, that she is 'watching closely' what is going on.
The trouble with that statement is this. The upcoming vote is to decide to Fast Track this bill. IF that succeeds, there will be no more opportunity to fix anything in the agreement that is harmful to the American people. It will be too late.
To be honest, my question to her would have been: 'Do you support Fast Tracking Trade Bills'. I am not sure if anyone did ask her that question.
But that is what is at issue right now. And since most Democrats have voluntarily, without being asked, correctly objected to fast tracking a Trade Bill that the American people are being prevented from seeing, it makes sense to oppose doing that.
Eg, Bush tried this in 2007, to Fast Track his Trade Bill. Democrats stopped him, rightfully so.
So my question would be more specific to what is relevant right now: 'Do you support the Fast Tracking of Trade Bills that Congress has not been permitted to see, or alter in any way, or discuss with their constituents'.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's hard to tell, she's very rarely specific.
Even on these very special days where she takes FIVE questions!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)what I find less than deserving of respect is her pretending that she's reserving judgment.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)is invaluable.
Thank you for your continued support for Bernie and dissemination of Hillary Clinton's actual positions. Many are currently in denial mode, and the ardent Clintonites are now "ignoring" me.. I wonder if there's a way to tell how many are ignoring me. I don't care who...
cali
(114,904 posts)but this pretending to be reserving judgment is so contemptuous of voters, it deserves to be exposed.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You have nothing at this time
Nov 2016 is a long way off and you will get your answer. Now go praise Bernie while he is still a candidate because come Nov 2016 he won't be!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)How many does this make now? And you're so special that you know the answers to your questions before you ask them. But you still demand that Hillary run things by your schedule.
You who don't even support her. How f...ing generous of your time you are!
cali
(114,904 posts)not obfuscate and fib.
This has shit all to do with being a "Hillary unpaid campaign advisor". It has nothing to do with wanting her to run things by my schedule. It has everything to do with expecting a modicum of honesty on an important issue from the leading Democratic Party candidate for the presidency.
That anyone could think that's too much to ask, is sad reflection on our body politic.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)completely on the cuff in case you demand she respond to you.
When she saves your ass by placing 4 liberal justices on the Supreme Court remember this time ok?
cali
(114,904 posts)something you seem to have no grasp of at all.
and when hillary loses to some repuke, I'll be blaming people like YOU
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You should post that in Breaking News!!! I'm shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!!!
Btw... as Hillary is a centrist at best, I hardly think she would actually appoint one single "liberal".
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Have you SCIENTIFICALLY determined that her index finger iS ....in fact... *DRY*?
Ms. Clinton... as ALWAYS.... is a work in progress. Another way of saying it is: " a moving target is hard to hit."
We await her next cognition.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She knows that trade agreements are going to exist in a global economy, and she would like the TPP to set a precedent for worker rights that we have not seen in previous trade agreements.
You can agree or disagree with her point of view. But it's not accurate to paint her as against workers.
cali
(114,904 posts)in her book. Now, for political purposes, she's saying something that she has made clear, is not true.
I'm not painting her against workers. And she's painting herself as a dishonest politician.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's clear to me. You hate her, so I can see why you can't see clearly on the issue.
cali
(114,904 posts)and no I don't like her as a candidate, but I certainly don't hate her. I don't like her as a candidate because I don't think she's honest. I think she'll say just about anything in the name of winning the WH, and I think her judgment on issue after issue, is just plain awful
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She sees it as a potential vehicle to right the wrongs of previous trade agreements. The fact that she is reserving judgment is because she would not support it if it did not do that.
Her voting record is clear. She voted against CAFTA, which was the only major trade agreement up for vote when she was senator.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's right there in the op. and she wasn't working for Obama when she wrote that.
there really isn't any argument here. She wrote it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In fact she is very consistent on bad trade bills....
In addition to voting against CAFTA we also have this:
"Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustras Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.
Thats not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if youre a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracyshe was just opposing it then to throw the rest of us off the scent, but shed support it later when it mattered. In fact, she was so intent on hiding her real position that she even parted ways with campaign manager Mark Penn because he was consulting for the Colombian government in behalf of the deal."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-clintons-still-aren-t-corrupt.html
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But again, as secretary of state, she changed her tune.
2010:
"First, let me underscore President Obama's and my commitment to the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to continue to work to obtain the votes in the Congress to be able to pass it. We think it's strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States. And I return very invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the Free Trade Agreement finally ratified."
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
You don't even know the stances of your own candidate?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"So then she became Secretary of State. And, indeed, she did start supporting itbut after that became the administrations position. Obama had also opposed the deal, which the Bush administration had begun negotiating with Colombia back in 2006, as a candidate.
But the Obama administration used the Colombia deal as a test case for whether it could get a trade partner to agree to tougher labor protections (there was, and still is, violence against trade unionists in Colombia, although the number of killings has gone down since the pact) as part of gaining access to U.S. markets. The labor provisions got in there. People debate today how much good theyve done, but theyre in there, and so Obama and Clinton changed their position and backed the deal."
Is she just supposed to be against any trade on principle? Why?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)and I quote
And then, to prove her consistency and integrity added this
Now you are trying to argue that she only came out so strongly FOR the deal because the Obama administration made her? Would that be the same administration that brokered a deal with her before she became Sec of State not to accept donations from new foreign governments?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Are you seriously blaming me because you didn't read it? LOL!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Good job, you reconvinced yourself...and no one else.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Two negatives make a positive, as you've probably heard.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Hater!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)approval when released.
Problem is -- people who are buying into all the "sky is falling" and "the TPP possibly, could lead to XXXX terrible outcome," don't like her reasoned response.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)She participated in writing it, gave speeches touting it, and has accepted a shit-ton of money vis a vis the foundation from the industry promoting it.
And some are still pretending they just don't know where she stands? Pahleeeeeeze.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Here is one for you:
"Now, 2008, you will recall, was when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It would stand to reason, would it not, that if Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustras Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband $131 million? But she was against it as a candidate, and implacably so! I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, she said on the stump in Pennsylvania that April.
Thats not exactly the position of someone shilling for a donor, but I suppose if youre a committed enough Clintonologist, you can turn it all into a conspiracyshe was just opposing it then to throw the rest of us off the scent, but shed support it later when it mattered. In fact, she was so intent on hiding her real position that she even parted ways with campaign manager Mark Penn because he was consulting for the Colombian government in behalf of the deal."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-clintons-still-aren-t-corrupt.html
She also voted against CAFTA. It's ridiculous to pretend she is some huge supporter of free trade bills.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)member, because the trade issues are far more important to me than the candidates in any given election. It's pretty easy to see that Trumka and other labor leaders are not pressuring Hillary to make a stand at this time and there are very good reasons for that with which I agree.
As a person whose objective is to halt any trade agreement that is not fully beneficial to working people and highly protective and promotional of human rights, my thinking on Hillary is that if she comes out for the agreement I really don't give a shit when she does that because labor, LGBT groups, and others will tear that stance to shreds in any given 24 hour period. Today, next month, who cares? If, on the other hand she opposes the bill, I'd like her to do so when the timing is such that it has the greatest impact on the passage of the deal. That's not today. Which is why those who have spent years on this issue are not calling for her to talk about it today. Those who are, I don't agree with them.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Why do you believe that she would have more impact later as opposed to now? The media is avoiding coverage at the moment. Having her come out with a strong stance against it would sway a lot of opinion as well as raise awareness. She has the bully pulpit; if she opposes, why not use it to great effect now? We need all the resistance we can get, and that means the earlier she opposes it, the better, imo.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)Her campaign position this spring has been quite a bit more progressive than what her stated priorities were as recently as last November. I think it's pretty clear that she's stuck up a finger and recognized that the wind is blowing strongly to the left, and as part of this shift, I wouldn't be surprised if she might change her tune. She's not going to be so loyal to corporate backers that she's willing to risk losing the election over one stink-bomb issue.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I'll bet she misquoted herself. Or maybe she was sleep deprived when she wrote that chapter.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To take a position.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)Instead you get bullshit questions about emails and retrenching on the well known disaster of war in Iraq.
This applies to any candidate for President.
1. Have you been following trade deals held in secret such as TPP and are you aware of contents where they are currently?
2. If so do you know how they will impact American trade and industry give specifics?
3. Do you trust those Legislatures and Administrative executives who are conducting the negotiations to benefit the country you wish to govern?
4. Have you read and are you aware of the contents of these trade deals?
5. If you are elected do you intend to honor your oath of office as it relates trade? Do you have any leeway to change your mind?
6. Do the American people have the right to know.
Not just Hillary any candidate including the Republican clown car.
I really do not expect to get an answer to any of my question.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Let's be clear about the outright contempt for voters, the bait and switch, the contempt for what a representative electoral process is supposed to be.
Enough of fake democracy and corporate perversion of elections into lying theater.
Enough of oligarchy.
cali
(114,904 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)other issues, so maybe now she's against it. Not that anyone will ask her.
chev52
(71 posts)Whenever well paying American jobs are to be sent to low wage countries, free trader democrats like to bring up Worker rights. Yeah, the rights of the workers in those low wage countries that get the jobs previously done in America. Whether they actually care about the Vietnamese who will make about sixty cents an hour doing a job an American used to do, doesn't matter. There will still be a net job loss to American workers.
cali
(114,904 posts)if you can't see that that second bit in particular is an endorsement, you're either in full blown denial or you're not being honest, or you're laboring under a delusion.