2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere's a Basic Problem with Clintonian Centrism. It's filled with Catch 22's
I know Hillary is not Bill. But she's spouting the same nonsense that Clinton The First spouted in the 90's, and that the so-called "centrists" continue to spout.
That is to say a lot of nice, empty, vaguely liberal-sounding platitudes and bury people under with a blizzard of overly detailed wonky proposals -- many of which will never be actively pursued or enacted after the election.
It's filled with buzzwords, and pseudo solutions to basic problems. But it's the same old free-market, Darwinian Corporate Conservatism that the GOP sells in a slightly more honest package.
And they insult liberals and progressives in a more indirect way.
It's filled with Catch 22's, because it supports policies and values that squeeze the poor/working/middle classes, and offers "solutions" that cut off real solutions.
The loss of jobs and decline of wages and general abuse of workers?
"America is the greatest and smartest country in the world. We can remain the world's leader with a New Economy of high-knowledge, high-skilled jobs and by raising our educational standards to train people for the Jobs of the 21st century."
But meanwhile they either ignore and/or actively support Conservative Free Market policies that undermine those wonderful goals.
First, they actively support "free trade policies" that send American jobs to overseas sweatshops
Oh and those wonderful "knowledge economy" jobs that will replace the shitty manufacturing jobs that we've allowed to be shipped out? Screw that. They'll be sent overseas too. We have to compete with those well-educated workers in India and China.
Expanding universal public education to post secondary public colleges and vocational training? Sure if you can afford it, and don't mind placing yourself in debt for the rest of your life to pay it back. Free college? Naw, that's just "ponies and unicorns." How will that be paid for? I don't want taxes to support free giveaways.
That's the problem with Clintonian "centrism." It claims to be one thing, but it's just the same GOP vice that squeezes the middle/working/poor classes -- it's just in a slightly more pleasant and less honest package.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I basically see Hillary as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Rockyj
(538 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)25 million jobs created. Taxed the rich. Longest stretch of peace time in the US. Unemployment rate super low. Clinton's know how to make an economy work. For all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The 90's were like a good stiff drink or a shot of crack.
A temporary hiogh based on unsustainable illusions.
You really think that the Crash of 2008, and all the problems that everyone (not just lefty progressives) acknowledges arre simply because we had a Republican in the WH after Clinton?
Instead of building economic policies that would be a stable foundation for long-term health, the Clintonians built a rigged house of cards that left us vulnerable to the damage that has occurred since then.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Bush didn't fuck it up.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm not saying Bush and the GOP didn't make things worse. But the deregulation, privatization, corporate monopolization, free trade policies of the Clintonians made it a lot easier for the GOP to blow down the house of cards.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Never would have burst, we'd all be using AoL to dial in so we could look things up on"lycos" or "eXcite", and housing prices would still be sky high... If not for Bush. 
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)although the explanation is usually confined to one of two causes that aren't mutually exclusive
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)Netscape...that was my jam before Yahoo took off!!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)When Pets.com went out of business, the only real asset they had was the sock puppet from their commercials which they sold for $125k.
on edit: I had a bigger picture, but it's really a drag on the 56k modem.
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)Probably made more profit off the damn sock puppet
Cary
(11,746 posts)Pretty much, Armstead, if we get a Democrat we move forward. If we get a Republican we get more war and less taxes for billionaires.
In other words, with a Republican WE, THE PEOPLE are screwed. Do I need to prove that to you? Really?
We've had this discussion here at DU before and basically it led to The French Revolution. Can we learn something, please? For once?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)this has been a perennial topic since Day One on DU (and elsewhere).
What's I've learned since the 80's, and especially since the 90's is that there is a faction of the Democratic Party and its leadership that has been in control for too long, who are not really an alternative to the GOP, except in degree and tone. It (as epitomized by the Clintons and DLC/Third Way) has essentially tried to purge Liberalism from the equation (except on certain social issues) on matters of Wealth and Power, and has pushed policies that are more moderate conservative Republican than Democratic Liberal.
What's worse is they keep selling themselves as the only legitimate opposition to the GOP, and use that as a blunt instrument to scare progressives and actual liberals from doing anything more than complain and vote for them grudgingly.
That kind of narrow spectrum and exclusion is not what a two party system is supposed to be about.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You live in a democracy. You don't get everything you want. Neither you nor anyone else has ever gotten everything they wanted and no one ever will.
Our parties are coalition parties. What is "a two party system supposed to be about?" You will not find anything about "a two party system" or what it's supposed to be in the Constitution. What we have is a plurality system.
They are the only legitimate opposition to the GOP, I'm sorry. That's life.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I wold just like for the political party that supposedly represents my liberal/progressive point of view to at least be pushing in that direction , rather than the opposite direction, with candidates who too often represent the same interests and the same conservatism as the GOP.
kjones
(1,053 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)But they are two sides in our oligarchy, where progressive ideas are not represented.
Obama and Clinton say they are not progressive. So, why not elect one?
Cary
(11,746 posts)You aren't influencing or encouraging. All you accomplish with your disaffection is self marginalization.
I guess that's your right but it makes me sad.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There's a certain irony in contrast between your strident defense of the status quo, and your claim that people who have criticisms or propose reforms are engaging in the same old,same old.
Rather than close off your ears and say "Nyah, nyah. I can't hear you!" it might be more constructive to actually listen and engage, and be receptive to the fact that perhaps the status quo does need reforms -- regardless of whether you agree with it 100 percent.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Armstead, you aren't addressing my points. You are changing the subject from the one I raised with you, to a personal attack on me. Where do you come off decreeing that I am for the status quo? That isn't what I am saying at all.
Nor have I closed my ears, Armstead. I am listening to you. I asked you where your disaffection has gotten you so far. I am suggesting that you haven't learned a whole lot since the last go round, when for all of the noise against PBO that noise proved to be marginal, if that.
And here you are with the exact same routine. It's not a great leap of faith to assume that you will have the same results: nothing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I try to keep away from personal stuff like that, but when it seems warranted I respond in kind.
But, to address your point this is not just knee-jerk disaffection for the sake of disaffection. Nor is it based on the expectation that the Democratic Party will ever just be a mirror of my personal views and beliefs. I am more than happy to support people who may be somewhat more moderate than I am, as long as we are trying to move in the same basic direction.
However, under the "centrists" the Democratic Partry has been far from liberal or progressive in many ways since the Clintons and the DLC took over in the 90's. In many core issues, they have pushed in the opposite direction, away from what progressive liberalism stands for towards a more conservative position, and support of corporate power over the public interest.
Unfortunately if the opposition to that seems monotonous to you, that is because the same damn problems keep repeating themselves and getting worse.
I could give many specifics, but haven't time for the whole litany. Suffice it to say on issues like "free trade," deregulation, privatization, corporate power, financial consolidation and systemic corruption their views are 180- degrees from what I -- and many others -- believe is necessary to combat the GOP. Too often it mirrors the GOP.
And the results have been concentrations of power and wealth, the shafting of the poor, working and middle class, and many other problems.
The Clintons epitomize that. Yes, she lost the primary in 2008. I like Obama, and supported him in 2008, and still do basically. But disappointingly, Obama offered less Hope and Change than promised, and he adhered too much to their the Clintonian pro-corporate semi conservative stance. And he brought in many of the same people who caused problems in the 90's into the WH with him.
IMO instead of continuing to dismiss and marginalize what disaffected liberals and progressives have been saying (and which is the basic message of the sanders campaign) and recycling the same policies and message that has been so counterproductive, the Democratic Party needs to open some windows and let in new views and perspectives.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You aren't even coming close to the question I asked you. I haven't dismissed or marginalized you, I have no such power. I simply suggested to you that your energies would be better invested in some kind of positive endeavor than in some kind of insipid attack on me; you respond with more insipid attacks on me.
Good work. You want me to cry or what? I can afford that, but I don't see that it gets you anywhere (which of course is the point you can't seem to understand).
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I will simply say that my entire professional life has been related to positive endeavors to advance my values and beliefs. And, based on feedback, I've been quite successful at it.
I explained my positions to you in a non-personal or insulting way, and you are still whining about it.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I haven't spoken to your personal life or your person. That's your gig, not mine and again it is the point I raise and the point you evade. I asked you where your anti-Democratic establishment attitude, or whatever you wish to call it, has gotten you and I suggested that when last I visited upon it the result, vis a vis President Obama, was nil. It proved to be irrelevant.
You are free to disagree with me, but you have not disagreed. You have evaded and you keep changing the subject to your opinion of me. In this last instance you claim I am "whining."
No, you are not non-personal nor non-insulting. That's patently untrue, as is your insinuation that I care whether you are non-personal and non-insulting. I have made myself clear: you are wasting your energies as you did before. You have not learned anything.
You are, of course, free to disagree. However your continued use of your silly ploy instead of addressing the actual issue makes me think you don't.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A waste of time.
Reread your original posts and note the tone and content. Read my responses - which I wrote in a good faith effort to respond on substsnce.
If you think I was needlessly personsl, and that I avoided your question, there's no more to say.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I didn't say you were "needlessly personal." I said you evade the subject with a cheap ego based emotional ploy, changing the subject to some comment about me personally.
Obviously this fulfills some need of yours. For what reason, I don't know but you don't think it's needless or you wouldn't keep doing it.
In any event you're wholly unable to answer my questions in a functional way, which I find fascinating. WE, THE PEOPLE will move forward without you. So it goes.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And it's not a talking point.
Do you think, for example, removing the former limits on how many TV and radio stations one company can can own was a liberal or progressive step to democratize the media? As a result of that "Democratic" policy by the Clinton administration, a handful of major corporations have almost completely taken over the broadcast media, and also own the infrastructure of the Internet.
Weak tea indeed.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Where are you going?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)However there are a lot of people pointing out that the Conservative Wing of the Party vote very similar to the Republicons. And both the Conservative Wing and the Republicons answer to the same corporate, Wall Street, and billionaire masters.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I asked us to please learn something. We are perhaps 95% on the same page. There is very little real difference between Bernie and Hillary and who cares which person gets the job?
It's actual policy that matters, and it's Supreme Court appointees.
How about taking all of that wasted "both sides do it" energy and putting it into something positive? We have nothing but negative and lies and smears from "conservatives," other than their zeal for war and utting blionaires' taxes.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Americans living in poverty that "That's life."
We don't have to viable Parties. We have a Conservative Democratic Party that Nixon and Reagan would have fit right in and another party that has been destroyed to make it plane that they are the worst of evils. The progressives have been totally shut out.
Some have redefined Progressive as Clinton and Obama with war, domestic spying, patriot Act, etc. And the real progressives that want to end hunger of American children are labeled as the far left.
Supporting Clinton is supporting a continuation of the domination of the 1%, which shouldn't surprise anyone because the Clintons are members in good standing of the 1%. When they say they want to help the poor, you will notice that it's with 99%'s resources and not a dime from their friends in the 1%.
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)I said nothing of the sort.
You really can't hold a civil discussion, can you?
I ask you too, where has this attitude gotten you?
kjones
(1,053 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Her vote for the IWar, where she betrayed her own party to join hands with Bush and Cheney and gave a speech to try to convinces other Democrats to follow them into war. She is conservative. Oh she pretends to support social justice but if you look behind the curtain you will see that her proposals for social justice are all funded by the 99% who are already over burdened. She won't raise the cap on SS because it might not sit well with her close friends in the 1%.
Why support someone that pretends to support social justice when you can support one that has always supported social justice.
It's a rhetorical question. See the answer here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710250
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)I agree with what you said a hundred percent. It seems that there is a strong faction within the DNC that has created a fiscally conservative/socially liberal ideology since the early 90's and it has continually presented itself as the only acceptable alternative to the GOP, who has become increasingly evangelically dominated. This faction has successfully bludgeoned any real liberal opposition as being "too unrealistic". What they have failed to acknowledge, at least on the Congressional level, is that those policies come across as fake or Republican-lite to the average voter, and those voters have been quick to fall behind the real GOP, while true liberals are pushed to the sidelines.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)These were daggers in the heart of America.
I don't want Rubin or the DLC'ers anywhere near the Whitehouse.
oasis
(49,387 posts)of a popular Democratic president, it reduces his argument to wet confetti.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)passes crap like NAFTA, de-regulation, welfare "reform" etc it IS undeniably stunning.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)To our democracy I can think of....that and CU
Armstead
(47,803 posts)or excuses them with a variation of conservative GOP rhetoric, their argument is even wetter confetti.
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*That didn't work out so well.
*and the millions of pot smokers sent to "private For Profit" Prisons for non-violent offenses.
*the 1/2 Million children killed under the Clinton "sanctions"...their families saw no "Peace & Prosperity".
*The struggling Americans that Clinton threw off Welfare...not so prosperous and peaceful
*However, the deregulation of the Banks saw ballooning profits, until the Clinton Balloon popped causing MILLIONS of American to either lose their houses, go underwater with payments, or had their homes repossessed....no Peace Prosperity there....ecept for WallStreet
*And all those 50s - 60s who could NOW be fired and replaced because they were too old, and a new Tech from India would do the job for 1/2 as much....those guys found no prosperity.
Over 55 in America= Unemployable (except at WalMart.)
I'm glad that the Clinton Lite Republican years were GOOD FOR YOU.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. Longest stretch of peacetime? I'm guessing you're not including Iraq or the Balkans.
2. If you're going to make claims about the economy in the 90s, honesty requires a shoutout to Alan Greenspan and that flood of cheap money his Fed sent out into the world. Credit was easy and cheap in the 90s, so there was a speculative boom. That isn't a shock, given that speculative booms happen every time there's easy credit.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)K & R
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Patriot Act? Domestic spying? Drone killing? Drilling in the Arctic? She is the master of rhetoric (double talk).
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There are plenty of highly intelligent people in every country, and most 'high knowledge' jobs are extremely portable. Portable jobs will go to the cheapest labour forces as long as we have 'free trade'.
We need to get back to the days of pushing for worldwide trade unions, workers in every nation working to raise the standards in poorer countries up, not the 'race to the bottom' where wages are pushed down to the lowest of the low to make capitalist shareholders more money.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Rather than look at root causes and real systemic solutions, centrists offer easy platitudes that don't work in the context of the real world...And ironically, they also refer to real solutions as "unicorns."
tecelote
(5,122 posts)American businesses find higher profits overseas and Americans are left in the dust.
These corporations that send jobs overseas get corporate welfare from US taxpayers and then they hide their income the best they can so they pay no taxes.
America supports these companies but they feel no need to support America or Americans.
Time for some Democratic Socialism to rein in unrestrained capitalism.
Nothing wrong with profit as long as there are moral and ethical limits.
America needs to work for Americans.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)You got it. Profits are great as long as they don't harm others, restrict their lives to bondage, destroy the climate or undermine democracy.
If an American has money invested in Wall St. Then they are the ones leaving the dust the rest of us, and those that come after them, have to try to survive in.
Like an abolitionist slave owner, they know what they are doing and perpetuating is horrible, but they will wait til everyone else stops. They either don't really care, can't imagine any other way or are too lazy to work for the betterment of all people. And hey, nothing wrong with that. Some people aren't cut out to be justice warriors. I just wish they would stop claiming that they are. It undermines those of us truly trying to make a better world.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Despite all the Armageddon talk ...
Isn't that one of the features of the dreaded TPP?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... helping organize "worldwide trade unions"!! Does the f'ing opposite. Many of us who are unemployed now because of this SHIT that gets pushed on us by corporatist parts of BOTH parties are just sick of the twisted logic thrown at us in the wealthy's push to work for a better "bottom" for them to race to and f any labor of ANY country in the process, not just the U.S.!
Hillary was clear on her pushing this crap in last election. Seems to avoid taking a current stance on this like just about every other important issues for us now too to avoid the "renegotiate NAFTA" promise(?) that another corporatist like Obama made to us trying to rationalize why we should support him then.
Foreign workers don't like this crap either as noted here.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html
H-2B visa guest workers were exploited even worse to the point that they won a lawsuit for the illegal BS they were subjected to under those hiring them through this program after Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.thenation.com/article/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison/
Bernie has taken consistently strong stances against both of these programs and at times has voted against immigration bills when they are too polluted with this crap.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/
TPP has been said to have now shown to have language to eliminate quotas on these sort of guest worker programs, making our situations worse NOT better!!!
BTW, anyone else who's looking for jobs now notice how so many of them are for 3 month contract jobs? Hmm, I wonder why they are now all so much of these shorter term contracts now. Could it be, that they figure that not long after that is when TPP will likely get passed, and they can just convert all of those contract jobs in to H-1B jobs if in fact TPP takes away any quotas our government can set on this program?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)that LOWER the bottom that the companies race to, not raise labor standards everywhere. There IS a reason that it was primarily corporate representatives along with revolving door historied trade representatives negotiating this deal in secret, and it was NOT to protect the rights of workers everywhere or our environment.
I was just noting that our candidates stances on TPP and exploitive programs like H-1B and H-2B which will likely be supported to grow under these free trade deals is a telling story of where their priorities will be in terms of helping average people's stances with their jobs worldwide. It is too bad that Obama wasn't forced to explain his "renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals" statement, that was intentional with its nebulousness and how conveniently you had two corporate candidates left in the race when Edwards conveniently dropped out right before Super Tuesday.
Americans don't want that nebulousness any more, and TPP and the language of other "free trade" deals now flies in the face of that!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes it does.
You are leaving out the part about Labor and Environmentalist had input to the USTR's Negotiating Objectives ... and you are misrepresenting how the agreement was negotiated; but, Yes ... there was a reason that corporate representatives (those working in/for the USTR) negotiated the agreement ... it's because they know about trade ... and there are equally compelling reason why the agreement was negotiated in secret ... just like every other trade agreement, BTW.
Who is my preferred candidate?
More C/T woo? Question: You clearly think that "TPTB" and "Oligarchs" are all powerful ... why do you even bother with electoral politics?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That this agreement would stop the exploitation of labor (and the environment) to help those entities that were the primary negotiators of these agreements without them being transparent or accountable to other entities that represent our interests more over the wealthy's interests.
How much input did Labor and environmentalist reps have in this agreement besides what most would call TOKEN representation that had relatively LITTLE power. When you don't even allow most of our elected representatives to see the details of these details and put up heavy obstacles to them doing so, you HAVE to really question what is being done with them.
And past history has shown really none of these agreements has helped labor or stopped the MASSIVE outsourcing of our manufactured jobs, etc. overseas. If you think this is wrong, then explain how it is wrong to state the FACTS that massive amounts of our company infrastructure have been shut down here in this country and the jobs there have been moved overseas.
And if there are some parts of past agreements that were included to help with labor protections, lack of enforcement of these portions have lead to things like KILLING sprees of labor movement people in places like Columbia.
I talk about TPTB and the oligarchs, because I and many others here think it is important that most Americans understand the political dynamic of how big money controls so much of our government now that necessitates a big grass movement of the kind that Bernie Sanders is advocating, and the Republicans and more status quo Democratic Party candidates like Hillary aren't.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you a member of a labor union? Because this is how labor contracts are negotiated ... the negotiating committee (most of the time) polls the membership to build its negotiating objective ... the negotiating committee negotiates the agreement (in secret) and the membership gets an up or down vote on what was negotiated.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and when the regulations are contained within endless pages of platitudes mixed with incomprehensible legalistic gobbledygook. it's fairly difficult for the average member of the public to knjow what is being done, or what they are being told they should support.
That's one reason the period of time for the "window" of access to the agreements is deliberately limited under fast-track.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the TPP negotiation process is virtually indistinguishable from the process of negotiating labor controls ... secrecy and limited window to review the agreement and an up or down vote, included.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)a labor negotiation is essentially a private agreement between a company and its employees as represented by the union. If the employees don't like the way the union is representing them, they have avenues.
A "free trade" agreement is basically establishing public policy, and dealing with many complex issues that affect everybody. It also has the potential to override the laws that were passed by a nation, state or local government.
Yes, theoretically, voters have the ability to accept or reject the politicians if they don't like the terms of agreements they push. However, allowing a narrow window for debate and forcing elected representatives to do a "take it or leave it" vote is contrary to the principles of democracy.
And, in the political/partisan sphere, it's why it's important for candidates (especially ones in national positions) to make clear their position on "free trade" agreements. And that's also one reason many people are disappointed in Obama for jumping onto the "free trade" bandwagon...and are skeptical of Clinton because she has been wishy washy and contradictory on it.
arikara
(5,562 posts)Negotiated to give favour and massive benefits to the corporations, to the detriment of the citizens of the countries and the environment some breakable for decades vs a 3 or 4 year contract between employees and employer.
To be the same the secret labour contract would have to affect customers and suppliers without any input from them, as well as their air, land and water. Not really the same, right?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Do you think customers and/or suppliers have a say in those negotiations?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If somehow a labor contract were to have an effect on customers and suppliers, they have the option of either renegotiating their own contracts with the company, or walking away and patronizing their competitors instead. Those are private business matters.
But most Americans (or residents of other countries involved) don't have the option of walking away. We are all stuck with the impacts, both political and economic, whether we want to be or not.
We also are put into a bind if the policies, social goals or actions of a national or local government run contrary to the requirements of these defacto "free trade" regimes.
It is the opposite of democracy. Rather it is an effort to impose a very specific "free market" ideology and economic system on the world. And the public interest is not high on the priority list of the corporations who are increasingly running the global show.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Every trade is touted as "this is different than those old ones. This one REALLY does address those issues."
And "input" to the negotiations. Yeah, if inmput means they're allowed to be in the room and express opinions that get ignored by the ones who are really doing the negotiation.
Sorry but I've heard the official "negotiators" go on TV or print andtry to justify these deals. They all sound like used car salespeopel trying to tell you how great that leomn really is despite its record of repairs and poor performance.
These agreements are inherently bad by design. It is impossible to put in such sweeping regiulations on an international scale in a "one size fits all" manner. They really are just a way to grease the wheels for Big Business to run roughshod over national, local and regional concerns and regulations, and set up baroque systems that puts the public at a disadvantage.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's been a consistent string of empty promises that have been used to sell these "free trade" corporate conservative free market cons for 25 years, and more. We're always told "donlt believe your lying eyes" and ignore that apparent cause and effect. The real effect will be prosperity here, and positive development abroad.
But time and again it has been shown that the cauise and effect turn out to be what was originally suspected by critics. Lost American jobs, lower wages, and an overall race to the bottom as corporations move to cheaper labor markets.
And to add insult to injury, when the workers in those developing nations try to flex their muscles for better conditions and wages, those same corporations abandon them and move on to the next desperate country.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But without the enforcement mechanisms ... which makes it different.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)ISDS seems to be broader in the scope of what kind of things that it can rule on to override our constitutional laws and government infrastructure the way corporations want it, just like they are getting with our court system being shifted over to an "arbitration system" discouraging class action law suits, etc. also controlled by corporate America against the interests of the citizenry.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The only enforcement is the economic pressure to prevent countries from passing laws, or following policies that run contrary to the corporate totally unfettered free market forces of globalization.
That's the purpose of these agreements. to remove regulation and policies such as public ownership of public services that run contrary to the desires of multinational corporations. The rest is window dressing and propaganda.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The President has a lot of "enforcement mechanisms" at his disposal but never uses. It doesn't do any good to have them IF THEY AREN'T USED.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)And believe me - the House of Labor is not a monolith on most contentious issues - our unholy marriage of "business unionism" and electoral politics has seen to that. "Business unionism" requires that the singular interests of the particular union trump all - so you can be sure if even one union saw any advantage in it there would not be this united solidarity (I say with sadness).
There's probably some pretty text somewhere in TPP about workers' rights - there usually is in these "Free Trade" deals. Fortunately, we have analysts who parse through these texts with a very fine comb. Just go to http://www.cwa-union.org/ for more info on why TPP is bad for workers in every country - put TPP in the site's search .... they have about a days worth of reading in comprehensible language on it.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Once you parse away the fluff in her statements there is usually very little, if any, substance left.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)There is no there there
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You all have got to WAKE UP!
Really!?!
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)another anti-clinton post you can't muster an intelligent response to?
that seems to be a common failing of their misguided supporters
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
Jackilope
(819 posts)Can't blame those that don't trust her. There are legitimate red flags you can't pooh-pooh, insult, or shame away. DNC owns this as this is the candidate they are setting up to be nominee.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and bury people under with a blizzard of overly detailed wonky proposals -- many of which will never be actively pursued or enacted after the election."
Sounds like the core of a typical Sanders stump speech, and even he is not so naive to not realize that many of his proposals can't be enacted.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)nothing will get done simply by electing him, if people don't also actively engage to support the goals they say they want. To at least get off our collective butts and make demands of politicians on things that matter.
He is trying to reorient politics back to the quaint notion of participatory democracy.
That is in contrast to the Clinton centrist message of "Just put us in and we 'adults' will handle everything. All you have to do is vote every few years, and we'll take care of the rest of it. I promise you'll like what we deliver."
Problem is the "adults" have screwed everything up, and are often as corrupt as the GOP they claim to be against
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
angrychair
(8,699 posts)Get so tired of these"Sanders is a dreamer, who pushes unicorns and rainbows" talking points. So, I ask: if so? Then what?
Say he wins the primary. Wins the general. Then gets blocked at every step. Stumbled on every effort to make things better.
The teapublican Congress just shits all over him.
What then George? Do you just roll back on your ass and laugh, rag on us "berniebots" and call Sanders some more names ( dreamer, failure or unrealistic) or do you stand up, as a Democrat, try to actually fight for the ideals that are supposed to matter to us?
The point is, at the end of the day, it has to be about more than the "art of the deal". If we are not willing to fight for more, you will always take less. Get less. Be less.
It's not about compromise, it about the middle class being compromised. Not saying people like Bernie have all the answers but I know enough to realize who is cares how we make things better and who: the person who has thousands of dollars of people money, not millions in corporate money.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Here! Here!
These past two decades have been made much more difficult for Americans, and I'm not simply referring to the flying monkey RIGHT Bush Junior playing with the tools of the war games Cheney, et al master-minded. I'm talking about the entire task of getting an income that sustains without working yourself to death made enormously more difficult by having Clinton the First's "free trade policies" all but wiping out any remaining manufacturing industry and any hope of vocational and technical training, since we're now competing at the bottom of the pay scale.
The gap between rich and poor has extended beyond the breaking point of civil society and sound economics.
Instead of meaningfully dealing with the resulting increase in job loss, student debt and endless loops of poverty, the political rhetoric of HRC is right in line with those who have no problem finding enough money for war but that there is never enough for infrastructure or education.
We are WAY past the point of making loans "easier"... Easier for WHAT kind of jobs?
Enough is enough!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Response to Armstead (Original post)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)...or reinforcing it by repeating the same tired old threat that is party of the centrist sales pitch. Vote for a conservative pseudo-liberal so we don't have conservative government
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Say the craziest things ...
Tell you what ... I'm going to ignore you so I can focus on the goal of electing Bernie Sanders as President of the United States of America.
You can wallow in pity ...
Phlem
(6,323 posts)for the midterms.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)This place is representative only of the odd collection of people who post here, and their views are skewed in all sorts of directions.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Their views are not in the least bit representative of so-called "real world democrats", but they're powerful enough to sink Hillary's campaign.
Docreed2003
(16,860 posts)While I will vote for whomever is the nominee in the general election, I will damn sure vote my conscience in the primary and fight like hell to support the candidate that I feel supports the liberal values of the party. Blame the left, if you wish, if Sec Clinton loses in Nov 2016. The problem with that argument is there have been many warning signs, this OP included, that show the weaknesses of a HRC general campaign. Unless the issues are adequately addressed, 2016 will be a repeat of 2014 and 2010, at worst.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)NAFTA...Glass-Stegall...
Yep, Big Bill, the First Black President, took his marching orders from the Oligarchs...and screwed Americans over and over...
Welcome to the world of the 1%er...
jalan48
(13,869 posts)It's the heart of the problem and people like the Clinton's keep spouting the same BS to avoid dealing with this issue. We are playing 'pretend' once again with candidate Hillary. Let's all pretend the failed trickle down policies of the Reagan Administration will finally work. Let's all pretend that if we work really, really hard (at one, two, three jobs?) that we can right the ship and get back to the good old days. And finally, let's all pretend that electing a woman who is a member of the .1% and does their bidding will be the answer. News for Hillary supporters, the .1% is made up of men AND women.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Thanks!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Putting aside the fact that HRC is not WJC, I just want to point out that that is how far this party has sunk: the longest peacetime economic expansion in history is now routinely attacked in terms that even Ross Perot would have considered demagogic 20 years ago. Well done, Democrats!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Let's take living wages off the table for Americans and issue more HB 1 visas to the people you're currently training in India!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Look back and read the news and opinions being promulgated during those halcyon days.
We were in a "new Economy" in which there would only be constant growth, with no more recessions ever. A continual upwards path.
Wonderful service jobs like call centers, that would replace all those yucky old factory jobs that were being sent overseas. Gee whillikers. Have you called customer service lately? Why is it "Andrew" always has a thick accent and often can barely muster the English language?
Alan Greenspan (Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman acolyte) are wizards who helped to ensure continued prosperity. And those were Democrats saying that shit.
Not to mention how wonderful the "modernization" of our antiquated financial laws were, and how they would contribute to the diversity and health and honesty of the economy.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)But, that's okay, because if that wasn't enough for you, the "go go 90s" were marked by consolidation of corporate power, with leveraged-buyouts becoming the norm of the day for Wall Street acolytes.
Well done, Democrats, indeed!
Stick a fork in her, she's done!!
Well-done!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is no excuse for ANY Democratic president to ever again have economic and budgetary policies as far to the right as WJC's were. He basically didn't try to be a Democratic president at all.
Yes, there was "economic expansion", but without egaliatarian economic values, that is meaningless. There was economic expansion under Reagan as well...in both cases, the abandonment of the poor and of labor was completely indefensible.
Expanding the economy, by itself, is meaningless. The economy is only worth expanding if all of us share the benefits of the expansion.
BTW, the candidate you are supporting would reject WJC"s economic and budgetary policies too, so what are you getting so self-righteous about here?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Clintonian centrism = moderate republican.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)Triangulation doesn't work anymore politically, everybody seems to know that except Clinton. The GOP is creating a playing field in which it will be impossible to triangulate, and Clinton will not be able to define her position in reference to the GOP.
What happens when she's facing the GOP candidate who says he'll cut Social Security by 20% and raise the age to 70?
Will she say, "oh no, let's just cut it 10% and raise the age to 68"?
That's my impression of a dysfunctional candidate, which is why I can't reasonably support her in the Nevada Caucus.
BERNIE 2016!
valerief
(53,235 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)and Krugman has explained the need for Glass-Steagal, and how it was repealed under Bill Clinton. Important safeguard to protect average people, but apparently Hillary thinks it's unimportant and will not support its return.
Her criticism of TPP was late and very, very tepid.
Bernie has never been late or tepid about standing up for the average person.
Go, Bernie!!!
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Prepare to be triangulated. 
--imm
MisterP
(23,730 posts)detailed wonky proposals"
what, where? 
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)She didn't show up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, of course, pleas for more money.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
fbc
(1,668 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)and that's what makes it so dangerous.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)Catch 22's for all. Same old crap stuff wrapped up in a new package.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)This:
"America is the greatest and smartest country in the world. We can remain the world's leader with a New Economy of high-knowledge, high-skilled jobs and by raising our educational standards to train people for the Jobs of the 21st century."
That's the stalest canard going; well past its sell date by 20 years. It's got to be PR fluff of third-way types talking amognst one another. I'm utterly incredulous that they think we're so naive that we'll buy this gobbledygook again.
No way in hell I'm supporting any candidate that flies this flag; regardless of any other of their stances.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)fund all safety net programs. They make good speeches about social justice but they would never, ever burden their 1% friends with helping. Watch HRC closely and you will see this is true. Will she raise the cap for SS? Nope. Her plans to "enhance" the program will require the 99% to pay the bill.
Here allegiance to the 1% is obvious. Those that pretend they can't see, have their eyes closed. They believe the wealthy are special and that they will help us.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)So, forget about following in your dad's footsteps working as a machinist in a factory, go college up and get your masters in international manufacturing law.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I don't want either one of them even near the White House again...period.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Hillary wrong on both.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/565c83a9e4b079b2818af89c
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But do carry on.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Best to try something new like the guy who says health care is a right and isn't afraid to be called a socialist.
