going after Wall Street, starting with the high frequency trading and dark pools. Who knows, maybe she will come out with a statement on TPP. I suspect it is more likely than not, because the media will keep asking her about it. What direction she takes, I have no idea, but I suspect her potential Democratic opponents will be against it, and that may mold her answer

sadly, I expect she won't say anything until after the vote. If it passes, she'll hew to her "wait and see" position. If it fails, she can say that it's a good thing it didn't pass.

than anything that was in the works during the bush admin- and hey, she trusted him enough to vote for the IWR- a blank check, as Pat Leahy said, for war.

The point I'm making is that fast-track today means giving a Democratic president authority to negotiate, and not letting the Republican-controlled congress pass amendments to what he proposes. That could actually be a good thing, unless you think Obama supporting things like the minimum wage increase and climate change action were just for show, and that the Republicans in congress are going to pass a bunch of working-class friendly amendments.

As for the IWR, you said in the OP that your opposition to Hillary would halt if she opposed fast-track, which is what I thought we were discussing here. If you think that the IWR vote is unforgivable, this is in contradiction to your OP.

Authority is, about past legislation giving a President said authority.

I am well informed. YOU are woefully uninformed.

Repukes in Congress support the passage of the TPA and the TPP. It is democrats who overwhelmingly- and I do mean overwhelmingly" At present, no more than 20 dems in the House support passage of the TPA.

You really shouldn't lecture when you're so ill informed, doc.

So no, it sure as shit would not be the repukes looking to amend- but that is all rather academic, as it's well accepted that the agreement will not be introduced by the admin if the TPA doesn't pass.

any questions?

what you are saying is that denying fast-track is simply a way to block TPP from happening. It's not really about allowing congress to pass amendments.

All the talk about keeping congress out of the loop and checks and balances all that is just political rhetoric. Really what fast-track is about is stopping TPP before it even gets started.

it's about stopping the TPP and as far as I'm aware, no one opposing it- from Bernie Sanders to Chuck Schumer to Chris Van Hollen- is saying anything different.

it's about strangling the monster in its cradle. Most people believe that if the TPA is passed the TPP will too- probably like Nafta, passed by the narrowest of margins. Nafta passed by 2 or 3 votes.

the way government works.

Right now, that's your single-issue objection. I suspect, based on several years of reading post on DU, that you would soon find another issue to use to oppose her. Just my guess, for whatever you think it's worth.

TPP is an issue, but it's a very poorly-defined one, and not on many voters' minds, really. Only those who think a lot about politics and trade policies really thing they know much about it. There are many, many far important issues for voters than that.

All we have is some leaked drafts of this thing, which is still under negotiation.

We were told if she separates from Obama she would be in deep doo doo. . Now we are told if she doesn't separate from Obama she's in deep doo doo. Regardless of how you feel about TPP it is very important to President Obama and John Kerry.

I have one, and I share it. TPP is a negotiation that is underway. Until there are some final documents to look at, I'm not saying a damned thing about it.

In the end, there will be a vote in Congress on the issue...after it is finalized. I write drafts of things, too. I revise them and change them, and then submit the finished project to my clients. Often, it is different from the draft in many ways. Then, my client either accepts it or doesn't. One revision is free for my clients. Beyond that, revisions cost money. Fortunately, almost all clients simple accept the final version without any changes at all.

Drafts are drafts. They're created during the process of creating a document. Until the final version is approved, there is no final document. I'll wait until I see that, and then communicate my opinion about it to my congressional representative and Senators. Right now, I'm not reading the "leaked" drafts.

But that's the fact. TPP will be voted on by Congress, but they won't be able to amend or revise the final version. That's all Fast Track means. In the first place, any amendments or revisions would have to be returned to the negotiation body for a vote before they would become part of the agreement.

Bottom line is that once the agreement is finalized and published, it will go to Congress for a vote. At that time, we'll all be able to look at the entire thing and find the good and bad in it. When that happens, we can inform our members of Congress and Senators of what we think of it. Now, they may vote to approve it or not, but right now, there's nothing to vote on.

I don't know what the schedule is for finalizing this. I don't know what's going to be in it. I imagine there will be parts that will be beneficial to all off the countries involved, including the USA. There will also be parts that won't appear to be beneficial. I expect the agreement to be complex and difficult for those not involved with international trade to understand fully. I know that I don't have that knowledge or background.

But, until the final version is available, I know even less about what its wording will be in all of the documents. Drafts is all there are right now. So, I'm holding my opinion of the overall agreement until it is finalized. Then, I'll read through it, see what people with expertise in that area have to say, and decide what I think. I'm funny that way.

And that, wanting to wait to see what is actually in the agreement (rather than the ever changing drafts, i.e., negotiation documents) somehow makes me a supporter of the TPP.

To pick up on another point, can you imagine what (completely, unrelated) amendments the gop would attach to this trade agreement? I can see an abortion ban, a SSM ban, cuts to SS and Medicare/Medicaid, and a balanced Federal budget law ... things that they could never get passed on their own.

You write:

You're completely omitting the "fast" part of Fast Track. The proposed bill would set artificial time limits on each stage of Congressional consideration.

The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) originally favored by the coalition of McConnell-Obama-Boehner (the MOB) was objected to by many progressive Democrats on the basis of those time limits. In negotiations between the MOB and the progressives (such as Ron Wyden), a compromise emerged, which somewhat ameliorated the harshness of the MOB's original preferred bill by providing more advance notice to Congress. The compromise retained the feature of artificial deadlines, though.

Incidentally, some people on DU excoriated Wyden for agreeing to the compromise. Certainly the TPA bill that emerged is still bad and should be opposed, but I'm not in a position to say whether Wyden made the best of a bad situation, given the combined political strength of the MOB. Let's just pause for a moment to note that we wouldn't even have this problem if Obama were proposing a TPA that met your description of merely prohibiting amendments.

Your resolute refusal to think about drafts has to be considered in the context of the "fast" part of Fast Track. The fact is that, even under the compromise, the normal democratic process of public discussion will be severely truncated. Therefore, it's not practical for everyone to defer consideration of the proposal until the White House is ready to start the timer. We'll be hit with several hundred pages of proposed rules.

Incidentally, this constant meme of "it's only a draft" is quite unrealistic. The thing has been in negotiation since 2010. The late-stage drafts we've seen are, as any practical person would recognize, likely to be very close to the final. Or do you think maybe ISDS will be completely dropped in the concluding negotiations?

On the no-amendments rule, I personally differ from many progressives in that I think that part is reasonable. In a multilateral agreement, what emerges from the negotiations has to be voted up or down. Otherwise one country's ratification, but with an amendment, would mean that the amended version would then have to go back to all the others, any of whom might add their own amendment, and so on. Of course, having chosen relatively secret negotiations plus a no-amendments course, the Obama Administration must accept that it will lose some votes because of objections that, under other circumstances, could have been addressed before the vote.

The main issue about fast track that proponents never address is why we need artificial deadlines for Congressional action. After more than four years of negotiation, why would this agreement suddenly need to be railroaded through? The most I could see would be a no-filibuster provision, given that the filibuster should be abolished anyway. Other than that, if Members of Congress raise concerns that can't be dealt with by a particular date, then the vote doesn't occur before that date. That's the normal legislative process.

The strong suspicion is that the MOB wants deadlines precisely because it will hinder the opponents, because TPP supporters will have a head start in understanding a hugely complex proposal.

first of all, I've made clear how important this is to me. I've been posting about it here for years. and secondly, I'm not saying I'd support her, I'm saying that I wouldn't oppose her.

You are, unsurprising, wrong. but then you're going off on something you clearly know very lilttle about, min. The TPP is becoming a big issue and voters by huge margins oppose NAFTA. It's becoming a very big issue. And no, it's not poorly defined.

In any case, should she come out against it, you'll have the opportunity to see just how wrong you are.

You will do whatever you do. I'll be here when you do.

1. Goldman Sachs bundled shitty mortgage investments and peddled them as AAA prime investments and then went on to bet against the shitty investments they sold their clients.

All this that helped lead to one of the largest financial disasters in American history. No one went to jail. Long time Democratic Senator Carl Levin called their action "deceitful and immoral". And one could point to numerous other GS scandals where no one went to jail.

The CEO of GS personally campaigned for Hillary, paid a few million dollars in speaking fees to Bill and Hillary which is cold hard income not donations, donates to her campaign and her foundation, & hires HRC's son in law to oversee his personal finances. Where else can Lloyd Blankfein stuff some money!?

Goldamnn Sachs meanwhile funded Romney, it's CEO and friend of the Clinton's won't even say if he voted for Obama, and appears to be planning to back Jeb Bush as well as Clinton for the 2016 presidential bid.

Why would we want someone in the White house that has this close of ties to a Wall Street bank that financially supports both parties in hopes of achieving corporate financial goals and has proven to be highly unworthy of the public trust?

2. The Iraq war vote wasn't a policy blunder. It was one of the most damaging foreign policy decisions in US history.

Regretting the vote doesn't show much other than admittance of doing the wrong thing and owning up to it. While this is much more honorable then Bush Cheney and GOP trying to legitimize a tragedy for humanity of epic proportions; it still begs one to question the wisdom and integrity of all of those politicians that went along with it.

America and the world will suffer for decades thanks to the flawed logic that lead the most powerful nation to pre emptively attack a middle eastern country that lead to wide spread destabilization in the region. The tragedy in regards of the loss of human life and other societal devastation is staggering.


But yet still Yes, I will probably vote for her if that's the best we can get because it would suck less than the unforgiving and unforgiven GOP neocon wing of the corporate party.

And yes, America goes for personality over substance and policy so I understand the great likelihood of that being the scenario.

Still why not push for candidates that actually give the American people a chance to learn and consider all the possible solutions to the problems facing our country.

One of the many reasons I supported President Obama very heavily was his talk of single payer healthcare. The fact that he negotiated away this discussion in private with leaders of the healthcare industry before it even got a chance to be heard by the American people was extremely disappointing.

Obama then many times negotiated with himself and taking more progressive stances off the table before negotiating with the tyrannical GOP which was also very disheartening.

The GOP NEVER negotiates without going for everything damn thing they want. Democrats that start with a negotiation in the middle and then excepting less just blows my mind.

With HRC as president I see the huge potential for a reincarnation of this self capitulation with the extreme neocon right ring in America.

America could and should do better.....

End rant/

decision. That's how it always is. For President, we will have two candidates on the ballot who might win. How we vote will make a huge difference for the following four years. We will have choices in the primary elections, of course, but in November we'll be voting for one of two candidates if we hope to have our votes matter.

If we don't vote or vote for a third party candidate who cannot possibly win, we have no part in deciding who will be President. It's an awesome and sometimes troublesome decision to make. I have never been able to vote for a candidate who believed as I do on everything, and never expect to be able to do that. It's a big country, and the presidency is our only real national election, where everyone who votes gets to choose. Wasting that opportunity is not an option for me.

I'm a Democrat. I vote for Democrats. They do a better job in supporting us all when elected. None do a perfect job, but I don't expect that. It's an imperfect form of government, but there is no perfect form of government for a nation of a third of a billion people. Like it or not, elections are what we have to work with and in almost all races, either a Democrat or a Republican is the winner. I vote for Democrats, and encourage others to do the same. Sometimes, the Democrat wins. Sometimes not.

They will voice their opinions, and should. I will voice my opinion as well, once I know what's in this agreement in its final form. Only then will it come before Congress, which will have to vote one way or another. The unions will have their input heard. I will have my input heard. Then, there will be a vote.

I expect to see parts of this trade agreement that are good for US workers and parts that will be not so good. I expect to see parts that are good for others and not so good. I'm not part of the group negotiating any of this. When it's in its final version, I'll look at it and consider the opinions of those I believe can interpret it correctly.

But, no, I'm not ignoring the unions. I'm not ignoring anyone. I'm waiting for a final agreement I can look at.

going to be allowed to see is what leaks to us. But I hope you are right.

The TPP will be completed by the partner nations. I can't do anything about that. It is not completed yet. I can't do anything about that. At some point, the final document will be available. I will read it and I will look for interpretations of it from people I trust. Congress will have 60 days to vote on it. I can communicate with my House member and Senators quickly. I will get a chance to make my opinion known, for whatever that opinion is worth.

Right now, all we have is leaked drafts of a small part of the thing. I don't have time to read drafts, and no inclination to do so, since they are likely to be changed. I'm a fast reader. When the final version is available, I'll read the entire thing and attempt to understand it. Very likely, my inexperience with global trade issues will mean that I have many questions, so I'll turn to people I trust who are experts in such things to help me.

I don't expect to like everything in the final document. But that's a normal state for me. I'll weigh the benefits against the adverse effects and then communicate with people who will be voting on it.

What I won't do is discuss the details until I've seen them in their final form and until I can see the thing in its entirety.

The agreement will exist. Whether it actually goes into effect is another matter. I have zero influence on the negotiations, and precious little influence on the vote of Congress.

Opposing the TPP I can understand but 'fast track' simply means idiot Congress creatures can't attempt to attach bogus riders onto a trade bill.

I think it's a losing position to oppose fast track unless it's to play into people's confusion with the term.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Many people don't know what the initials TPA stand for but they do know what fast track denotes. And what it means is not "attaching bogus riders"

First of all, it means that none of those "idiots" you evidently disdain- Warren, Sanders, Merkely, etc in the Senate and many liberals and progressives in the House can amend anything in the agreement. Straight up or down vote.

It's idiot repukes who support the TPA for the TPP. Only a small handful of dems do- and they are all conservative dems.

If we don't like the final agreement, we can inform our legislators of that and encourage them to vote it down. Congress always bollixes up anything they amend, anyhow, especially when republicans are in power. Congress can simply vote it down.

Do we really want abortion riders attached to a trade bill? It is a colloquialism but it's inaccurate, for what that's worth. If Warren or Sanders or anyone thinks strongly that something should be added, they can vote 'No'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

Not to mention, any change (down to the placement of a comma, will mean having to go back to the partner nations ... But I guess that's the point for many here.

This would inevitably come next from those who oppose her even if she took their preferred position on TPP:

I will stop opposing Hillary if she ends her candidacy and retires.

I'll even throw in $500,000 towards the purchase of a retirement property at least 200 miles from the US borders. I hear lovely things about Ibiza; perhaps a villa in the south of Spain is more her style. Just go away, Hillary. Far far away.

Since you have $500,000.00 in discretionary income I would suggest you donate here:


http://www.homeboyindustries.org/


You would make a difference in people's lives. I can't imagine what $500,000.00 would do to change and improve the lives of these young men and women.

Really? I can think of many ways you could put that to excellent use. People who have that much discretionary money are part of the 1%, though, so I doubt you'd like my suggestions.

homeboy industries does great work.


Here's another suggestion:


http://sabancommunityclinic.org/

and another:



http://skidrow.org/

and another:


http://www.sanfernandovalleyrescuemission.org/index.php/en/


Lives would be changed.

Sadly, I have no expendable funds available in large amounts.

I've never made a secret of it. I come from money.

My family owns a very large share of a medium-sized military manufacturer nobody has ever heard of and my grandparents were land-speculators here in the W. CT/distant-NYC suburbs starting in the 1950s. I started a moderately-successful communications firm for NPOs. I'm not hurting economically and a lot of other people are. It's why I say that my taxes are too low; I know that the government really is better at spending that money to help the public than I am. If we had a viable Socialist party, I'd be a Socialist.

That said, that $500,000 isn't discretionary income...it's my savings for retirement, minus withdrawal penalties, plus the remnant of an inheritance. I want to be rid of her that badly that I am willing to liquidate my assets since I never actually plan or want on retiring. I love what I do and if I can't go in my sleep or in bed with a beautiful woman, I want to die at my desk. I'm youngish, 35, no kids, no wife, no heirs, no desire for any of the above--I'll replenish that $500k over the next decade or so with no pain. Even if I do, I can't take it with me.

here


http://sabancommunityclinic.org/

here



http://skidrow.org/


here


http://www.sanfernandovalleyrescuemission.org/index.php/en/


and here


http://www.homeboyindustries.org/

To have HRC go away?

Perhaps, you should direct that money to ReadyForWarren.com or better, http://www.democraticunderground.com/12773857 (the founder would thank you ... from the deck chair of the pool of the gated-community home, he would purchase).

NT

the manny has a sad fund: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6285700

$500K would definitely solve the sad!

I also think she should go beyond what she has previously said about her vote for the IWR. That would put me lukewarm in her corner.

but I'll want more then words.

The TPP, like NAFTA and GATT before it, is being discussed, written and revised only by the corporations that will benefit from it. Similar to the ALEC model of legislating, where an ALEC committee writes the legislation and gives it to local lawmakers to propose. Congress cannot actually see the proposed agreement before it is introduced, and neither can the American people. Why the secrecy?

NAFTA and GATT have been serious blows to the working class in the US. There has been no benefit to workers as a whole from the legislation. The tax law literally rewards corporations who move jobs overseas, which is one reason millions of manufacturing jobs are gone.

I agree with Cali that a true "champion" would act now, using what influence she has, to derail fast track.

How is voting the opposite of Democracy?

Sorry, I like to be precise about these things.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

people think. It's about far more than simply mandating a straight up or down vote on trade agreements. there's a reason that the current TPA proposal is 114 pages.

I don't have much faith in the intelligence of the GOP but I'm sure Democrats are willing to actually read and understand a 'mere' 114 pages in that time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

It does not matter how much reading is done, the vote is a yes or no, with no amendments possible.

The middle class is slowly disappearing and it's election time again. Let the careful consideration and the pragmatism begin.

There are all sorts of ways that politicians are sometimes given cover to oppose or support a particular issue even when it is not their true position. For instance, whoever is whipping the TPA could signal to her that, since she needs the political cover on her left wing, she could safely come out against it if they decide they can pass it anyway (I know she has no vote as an ex-Senator, but she still has an important voice, her position matters). It's done all the time, which makes it difficult to know exactly where someone stands based on their voting record or publicly stated position.

It would take a lot more than that for me to support Clinton. I'd need real substantive campaigning against TPA (and the TPP itself). Also she would need to be on the correct side of other things like

reigning in the the surveillance state
military adventurism (including covert efforts by state department)
reinstatement of or support for a substitute for Glass Steagal
a small financial transaction tax or other fixes to reign in short-held automated stock trading
ending the drug war
supporting training of U.S. people rather than H1-B visas
a very real and aggressive approach towards reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases with something on the scale of the Manhattan project
reducing our insane incarceration rates

those are the kind of issues that I could support her, or any candidate with those positions.

.. or most politicians, would not be enough to sway me in the slightest. Talk is cheap, action is what counts. I've up to my ears in meaningless, insincere talk from pols.

My central objection to Clinton is her vote in favor of invading Iraq. That invasion was a deliberate crime against humanity, for no good reason at all. I have lots of other differences with Clinton-- I don't like her close ties to Wall Street, I don't like her support for the Patriot Act, I don't like her tacit support for the TPP-- but I think her IWR vote demonstrates that she is unfit for high public office.

She will have to do something to undo the effects of her vote to regain my support. She cannot breathe life back into the million or so Iraqis killed as a result of her political cravenness and she cannot restore Iraq. She cannot undo any of the damage she helped heap upon the region.

But she can pledge to pursue and prosecute the war criminals responsible, and she can admit her own culpability for crimes against humanity and join them in the dock. She can face the ICC along with Cheney, Dubya, Rice, Powell, and all the minions who helped them, and if she's exonerated, or when she finishes her punishment, I will reconsider my opposition, and might even become a supporter. Let's see whether she has character, or just boundless greedy ambition.

be fairly wholesale and at this point it would have to be a Saul on the road to Damascus level of being openly radicalized transformation to even begin to buy it.

I understand being desperate for a reason to believe but decades of positions, statements, associations, and highly suspicious timing make it about impossible to suspend disbelief.