Not all of us are falling for it, that's for sure.

Neo-liberals hope to fast-track and pass the TPP while team mate Hillary dodges the issue. In due time, they will pass the power baton from Barack to Hillary. Though, before she gains power, the bill will have become law, she will be safe to speak out against the TPP.

If she blasts the Trans Pacific Partnership now, it throws a wrench in everything - politicians will be forced to follow her lead, voters will line up with her and the TPP will be in trouble. If she supports the trade agreement, she loses much of her base.

Half the reason the TPP is being fast-tracked at this moment is to get this off the table for Hillary's presidential run in 2016. Hillary has the lead in this game and is trying to run out the clock. She will ditch saying anything substantive until the game is over and will avoid this issue like its a Chipotle surveillance camera.

Just another example of the reasons why I can't vote for her.

if they believe her. I don't, and I know many here don't.

Sid

DSB

because last time I posted results, I got a hidden post.

Thank you in advance.

Oh, and alerter, I wasn't talking about the Elizabeth Warren Group.



Sid

but this was a stupid alert.

If they start banning snark around here, I'm gone (involuntarily if not voluntarily, no doubt).

Do you know where Clinton stands on the TPP? 75% of Americans oppose it. That's pretty overwhelming.

Now we have another candidate for the WH about to announce. He is absolutely opposed to it.

He is gaining support even before his announcement due to his straight talk on some pretty major issues.

I imagine soon there will a few 'anti-O'Malley groups on DU.

Sid

Please link to the obviously unapproved Group that has slipped past the Admins without anyone, such as yourself, alerting on it.

HAVE you alerted on this anti-Tos Group btw?

Where is the group called the 'Anti Hillary Group' that violates the TOS?

And why can't Sid answer for himself?

the quote I posted was from the 1990s.

Actually she has been out of negotiations for years now. A draft is not the final product.
Personally I think it is smart politics to take a wait and see view.

product, but it can tell a lot. After years of preparation, I bet the draft is 95% of the final. Saying "she has been out of neogtiations for years now." doesn't really mean much. I hope you are trying to tell us she is clueless about what's happening with the negotiations. Since she is hoping to be President, she should be well aware of what's going on.

I think her consternation on which way the wind will blow says a lot about her new populism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777031

to announce his run for the WH doesn't have to wait and see regarding the TPP, he is strongly opposed to it.

We have a fair idea now of some of what is in it, bad, bad stuff. And that's just a glimpse.

Fast tracking anything, has always been controversial and should be eliminated, as it obliterates the role of Congress in its role of being a check and balance on the other branches.

So, forget NAFTA, this is now and it is urgent to take a stand on this most awful piece of legislation.

Why is that so hard for Clinton to do?

It is smart politics; but more, just plain smart, to not come out with an opinion on an agreement that isn't in its final form.

* The Secrecy

*The lock out of LABOR, Environmental Protection Advocates, and Human Rights Activists, and keep the "negotiations secret among the most power Global Corporations in the World.

*It is smart to strongly oppose "Fast Track".

Past IS Prelude. "Free Trade" has been devastating to America's Working/Middle Class.
I don't trust our "negotiators" to have the interests of the Working Class in their hearts;
their only worry is Corporate Profits.

Free Trade and the people support it have a horrible Track Record.
Thrice Burned = thrice shy. (NAFTA, CAFTA, Colombia/Panama/ Korean Agreement.)
NONE of the above helped the American Working CLass/Middle Class economically.
Why should we trust them now?

SO, YES!
I OPPOSE the TPP on the above grounds until the "Transparency President"
comes clean with the American People.

object to the "secrecy" that every trade deal and every international negotiation needs to get done.

No. It is NOT smart to object to the lock out of LABOR, Environmental Protection Advocates, and Human Rights Activists, and keep the "negotiations secret among the most power Global Corporations in the World ... IOWs, conspiracy theories. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2012/june/transparency-and-the-tpp

No. It is NOT smart to object to FT ... and allow the gop to insert abortion bans, SSM bans, cuts to SS/medicare/Medicaid, and balance budget language into this trade bill as amendments.

Clearly, you do not.
No wonder we don't agree on much.

I'll stand by my post,
and Re-Post it here because it is important:


bvar says:

poking at every thing they can think of to criticize her?

If she says she has not made up her mind on something, they are reading her mind to provide the most negative outcome, which they already want. At least respect her knowing her own mind.

for fools. In 2008 progressives wouldn't buy what she was selling and they aren't buying it now, even with the attempt at a new populist brand.

The OP title IS wrong ... It should read, "HRC's populist message is wasted on 'progessives', who wouldn't believe her if she said, 'water is wet', so she is talking to the other 99.99% of America that is actually seeking solutions."

Granted that'she a long title; but, it fits the circumstance.

prosper? I bet that has them rolling in the isles at Goldman-Sachs. You are correct that she needn't waste that message on the progressives that can see thru her rhetoric. Now if she were to say she wanted to break up the banks, install a tax on Wall Street transactions, penalize those banks that bilked millions out of the homes (still going on today in a neighborhood near you), raise the cap on SS, stop the NSA/CIA from spying on all Americans, then she might get the attention of progressives. But that's not her, it wasn't her in 2008 and it's not her today.

the economic populism message (ala, Elizabeth Warren) that the DU 'progressives" begged her to speak about ... and now that she/has, you post daily "It's a trick" threads about.

Sid

or at least they claim to. Meanwhile, she's not fooled the liberals and populists at all.

you might be interested in

At least, a Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

Had one of her fans tell me yesterday, that she had no negative facts in it.

My ignore list grew by one.

A lot of people seem to wish that it were not. For better or worse, Obama did not say what meant when he promised to renegotiate NAFTA, but 'renegotiate' it he is.

Wow, another anti-Hillary thread on DU. How unusual.

How about a candidate you prefer instead

to make their point, that piss me off.

i do not trust clinton with tpp anymore than obama.

that is also not gonna be the be all and end all of defining a candidate. that is a voters right. that does not make them a fool.

being fooled.

Don't take it personally.

I didn't take it personally when I read it because I knew the author wasn't speaking about me, but to the large number of people in the dark about this subject. Plus I'm just not that sensitive. I'm sorry it offended you. That wasn't my intent at all when I posted it.

with the intent ot insult me.

i do not take it personally

it has nothing to do with me.

i am not working so hard to insult. just to say..... hey lookie, your intent is to insult me. yea....

but play. what ever. then tell me how i am suppose to take you seriously

if i do not absolutely agree with you, then i am a fool.

fools.

Someone can try to pull one over on us, playing us for fools, doesn't mean we are or they will.

"We are being played" = "We are being played as fools" = an attempt is being made...

which doesn't equal that we are, especially when the attempt at fooling us is clear as day. The attempt does make the inauthentic one attempting it look foolish though.

buy it

as i stated. and i state again. the insult is obvious. i am not fooled. play it as you like, i do not give a shit.

Look how many voted for Bush. Look at all of the people who think Warren is lying. Low info voters are a dime a dozen.

I hate that term...

I want action, not words.

which was made by Bush and passed by Bill and the TPP which is Obama's show while not even bothering to mention the votes cast by Hillary as a US Senator is intentionally incomplete in a way that suggests hot burning agenda.
I recall her voting against Fast Track and also against CAFTA. Her trade bag, it's mixed.

get through Congress before the election, which Clinton won. In the election, but Clinton and Bush favored NAFTA, Ross Perot was opposed to it. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican then, and her vote was to re-elect Bush, who also would have completed NAFTA. Democrats in the Senate were 26 yes, 24 no. Republicans 34 yes, 12 no.
I've been following trade issues for most of my life. Union and all that.

“...we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. … This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment,”

It was a lie. The TPP does NOT build in strong protections for workers, and it definitely does NOT protect the environment. Just the opposite on BOTH. The only strong protections are for big corporations AGAINST workers and environmental regulations.

Neoliberal policies, whether put forward by corporatist Democrats or Republicans, go against everything this nation should be standing for.

Everything he touched turned to shit!!

I'm glad I found this OP. I had read on a pro-Clinton OP/thread people who said it was an offensive OP.

I don't find the OP offensive. But I certainly find the information in it to be so.

Thank you for posting this.

Your opinion means a lot to me!

These "trade" agreements aren't so much about trade, but about cementing corporate control over local govts. Its so infuriating this isn't being told to the public in msm (nor is it being talked about by our leading Dem candidate.)

They know their only chance to beat her is to divide and conquer the Democratic party.

Better Believe It!



ETA: there's a lot of "fooling" going on here.

I'd bet my next paycheck that we're seeing an encore performance here.

We may have more running in this Presidential race if we are lucky. And in that two person, or more race some will prefer one over the other. Why do you consider posting articles about a candidate who has announced she is running being used to "divide and conquer the Democratic party"? In any election the party is divided.

So articles like this simply create turmoil among the party faithful which could give Republicans some hope.

us seem to like discussing the "only" presidential candidates views and her opinions on things that are important to us.

She is a politician and all politicians are fuzzy with promises but to claim she is simply saying these things to "fool progressives" is unfair and simply wrong. It comes off as an attack.

I think for much of her political career she has been trying to create an image of a strong leader to counter the perception that a woman doesn't have the cajones to be President. Once elected that wont be necessary. Maybe wishful thinking but I think it may very well work out that way.

I don''t believe she will shift left. That's my feeling and the reason I don't support her candidacy this time.

but discussing that track record is off limits?

if you want to beat the Republicans its probably best not to trash our likely candidate.

Your post: "I'm not saying it's off limits, but you will destroy the country if you talk about it".

Yeah, I'm done with that. Blindly lining up behind "electable" has been a disaster.

I am convinced Hillary is our best shot to stop them. If you can't see that then you are indeed blind.

Perhaps you could call me "ugly" too. That'll get me to come around.

Btw, I'm well aware of what disasters await if a Republican wins in 2016.

We have an arthritic party leadership that is perpetually locked in 1991, resulting in continuously negotiating ourselves towards insane. Staying with 1991 just makes things worse at a slightly slower rate than Republican rule. If you take the interstate to hell, or the scenic route to hell, you still end up in hell.

If that means a horror show caused by a Republican administration, so be it. Being not as bad in 2018 is not as important to me as things being much better in 2030.

Continuing "not as bad" will never make anything better. It only makes our situation worse at a slower rate. So 2030 sucks, but you're only beaten by our moneyed overlords once a day instead of three times a day. Oooooooo.

What, specifically, are we supposed to be waiting for before we make the future better? Polling shows overwhelming public support for "liberal" positions. The people want better. Let's stop giving them slightly worse.

Who's going to do that? Dunno. It's FUCKING APRIL. There's zero reason to "lock in" on a specific candidate this early.

good grief.

Feel free to explain a non-stupidity or non-cluelessness reason why I would not know what they want to do.

And is calling someone "blind" in that context supposed to be a compliment?

Your problem if you see it that way.

"Maybe if I just say it enough times it will become true! Like clapping for Tinkerbell!!"

I would say it is the Third Way corporate Dems who have divided and conquered the Democratic party, and are imposing corporate written, right wing legislation that Republicans are more than happy to help Obama pass. So in that respect, yes, Republicans surely love articles like this.

Hillary wrote in Kissinger's book review, "In my book “Hard Choices,” I describe the strategy President Obama and I developed for the Asia-Pacific." She also wrote, "Given today’s challenges, Kissinger’s analyses of the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East are particularly valuable."

Hillary may be playing a coy game with her opinions on the TPP today, but while SOS, she admitted to developing the TPP with Obama, and enlisted Kissinger's "valuable" help while doing so.



Echoing promises of lowered trade barriers, improved labor conditions and environmental protections made by NAFTA advocates two decades earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Hanoi, Viet Nam in 2012 promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the most far-reaching trade agreement ever, encompassing 12 Pacific Rim countries. As usual, she lied, judging from the leaked chapters of the secretive trade deal.

vimeo.com/125586178

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/nafta-the-transpacific-clinton_b_5523327.html

the way many here are trashing Hillary. Especially when the Democrat is very likely to be our nominee.

American workers get the same wages as Vietnamese workers.

That's what their shills will actively promote-- under the guise of caring about foreign workers. It's disgusting.

Ridiculous.

don't forget about the judges.

but she tried.

she may do some things I don't agree with, but I have far more in common with her than not.

The distance between my ethics and Hillary's might be significant, but it's nothing compared to any Republican challenger.

The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.

I also was under the assumption you were talking about single payer which doesn't necessarily have to be the case for universal care.

Yes I was asking seriously. It didn't seem to mesh with what I remember from the time.

Obamacare while not ideal, is a large step in the right direction. Hopefully people see that a type of government sponsored healthcare has helped society and not bankrupted the country. Hopefully people will be more supportive of expansion.

offer an alternative recommendation, or they push someone who says they are not running in 2016

Potentially they could advocate for O'Malley, Sanders, or someone else that has expressed interest, but usually it doesn't happen

Hill is a Wall Streeter from the word go.

I wonder if the day will come when a laborer will become pres. A person who is not book smart, has no degrees in edumacation.

Even a person who has lived on the mean streets of Merica as a transient would make a great pres.

I'm in.

of us. tomsaiditagain, one can be highly educated, in fact, and not be a neoliberal.

Case in point~

sure do a lot of screwing up lots of stuff. Life experience vs books smarts? I take life experience.

That's why our Democracy is so fucked up.


See: The Republican Base

"NAFTA is being 'renegotiated'.
A lot of people seem to wish that it were not. For better or worse, Obama did not say what meant when he promised to renegotiate NAFTA, but 'renegotiate' it he is."

. .
not to mention a grammar alert.

Medicaid and Medicare, and a lot of other safety net programs. But I stop with both her and President Obama when it comes to TPP and many economic issues.

yet the Haters are working day and night against her! Somethingy stinks in Denmark!

Sid

Hey, keep it up with the haters dog shit that you're so fond of and the lying accusations that those of us who don't support her are republicans. That worked out so well for you yesterday.

I believe she wants to come out in support of the TPP. But public opinion is rapidly turning against the TPP so she must be careful of what she says.

They can't make the TPP small print small enough. We will know what's in it. And what is in it is bound to be very ugly because that is why the TPP has been created—to take advantage of cheaper labor, weak labor rights and weak environmental protection.

really would be insane.

This is what I really don't want to have happen.

There is still time for another candidate to come out on top during the primaries. I read Bill Clinton was polling at around 4% for his first Iowa primary. No one knew who he was. Someone else out there has a shot for 2016, a true Democrat(D), please!!

We are definitely on track to meet that goal.

One can certainly speak ones mind on the issue, but one cannot admit they aren't funding its passage.
At best, they come across as genuinely as Thomas Jefferson on the evils of slavery.

trade agreements and Fast Track authority? It can't just be because the facts don't serve the author's agenda, I mean this author swears to be reporting the real history, so there must be some reason to exclude what would usually be the prime data used to consider a former Senator's views, their actual votes. In this case, her actual voting record is unimportant?

is incomplete and does not in fact present a full picture. Linking to the information I said is not in THIS piece in some other piece refutes nothing I said about this piece of shitty, shitty agenda mongering, insulting to the reader bullshit. My criticism is of the article you posted, not of the subject matter of the article.
And I do not need the permission of my Straight Overlords to say this writing is furtive, dishonest crappy.
Also dishonest, linking to some other article as if it was the same one in the OP. Which you did.

managed to stop him. So why do you think some Dems now are not doing the same thing?

present a discussion of the real history, but actually leaves out the bulk of the data available. My Rep is railing against Fast Track with my full urging. That's utterly beside the point. This article is not an honest article. Is says 'she's fooling you' then says 'this is the history' then omits most of the history. That's insulting, no matter what point is being promoted.
It's not insulting to Hillary, it's insulting to the reader. And that's the point I am making. This shit is insulting and manipulative and hyperbolic and inaccurate.

that Democrats who opposed Fast Tracking of a Trade Bill, (including Hillary) under Bush, are either 'waiting to see what happens' now, or FOR it.

What is different about the issue of giving up Congress' role of negotiating Trade Agreements NOW and THEN?

Seems to me the reaction should be identical. Congress should never give up its power to the executive branch.

I think you are missing the central issue here. It isn't the TPP itself, it is the Roleand Power of Congress as Reps of the people being handed to the Executive so that one individual has all the power of the government to make deals without any interference or input from Congress.

It isn't even about individual politicians. It is about our system of Checks and Balances no matter who is in power.

But nice try.

Here's something that great news for Dems, I'm guessing you missed it~

Democrats score major Senate boost: Tammy Duckworth announces Illinois run
Iraq war veteran vies to defeat GOP Sen. Mark Kirk
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/30/democrats_score_major_senate_boost_tammy_duckworth_announces_illinois_run/