to win support from Bernie's supporters.

And you are spot on with your OP. Thank you.

a result of Bernie's early success in drawing large crowds.
IRC, he formally declared well before HRC.

Further, it looks like the TPP will pass, so opposing it now is a more than a bit disingenuous.
She gets to oppose it so "she is really in our corner", but it's so far down the road, it will pass and her corporate friends are the real beneficiaries.

Peace

with her. This is going to blow up in her face come debate time.

I am not in favor of a candidate that chooses to time her objections in a way to avoid having this be an issue during the debates. That is not acceptable.

I am not in favor of a candidate that times her objections for a point where they can no longer truly prevent the passage of a trade pact that she helped craft.

I am not in favor of a candidate that gathers a few hundred endorsements and then utterly Fails to yoke those endorsements to the cause of ending the trade pact that she helped write.

I am not in favor of a candidate that is just trying to placate the leaders of unions that her third way friends will later shiv in the back when it no longer suits them.

It is bullshit brought to us by purchased politicians...it is a middle class destroying project just like NAFTA and every other unfair trade agreement purchased by corporations..it is anti democratic and it is unconscionable that Democrats are responsible.

The Labor Party Is Dead.

Instead of paying $15 an hour here in the US, it is paying $3 an hour in, let's say, India. Great, it's a union job, which helps us how?

Btw, I have absolutely no problem with factories going into other countries, as long as the majority of their sales are in that country. When corporations can import product from other countries without tariffs just because they hold an office in the US, that's wrong. The only way any thing will change is if corporations have to pay a tariff large enough to offset the taxes that are loss by not paying US citizens at the very least. Our government is paying out subsidies to people who can't afford to live on the pittance that local companies pay, or should I say Walmart wages. Some one has to take up the slack, and it should be those who are making money off of our purchasing power.

And, while we are at it, the government should not be outsourcing ANY of it's work, whether it's a village or a state, or the US government. I realize that governments are strapped, but every outsourcing job takes tax revenue out of the government coffers. I have no idea how come executives in any 'company' can't see the long term view of their short term profits.

Oh, and while I'm on a rant, profit from Wall Street or banking should be taxed at the same rate as any 'product' that is sold. Sorry, but if I have to pay a sales tax on my sales, so should they.

Z

with CRAP like "Fast Track" to bypass what our founders had set up to ensure that unconstitutional BULLSHIT like many of these treaties have in them serving BRIBING corporate interests didn't get put in to law to contend with our governmental functions serving the people instead of the 1%ers buying this shit.

negotiated in secret

LOL

who cares? Transparency = let them eat blogs

"not really secret"?

Please provide me with a link to the full text of the agreement and all side agreements.

Since it isn't secret, we should all be able to read it.

We want to analyze it.

Now off to the ignore list.

That seems very secretive to me. Congree negotiates hundreds of laws each year where we get to see the drafts and the changes and who made them. Why are trade agreements so special?

No trade group, environmental organization, citizen's groups or consumer organization has ever stated they were allowed to provide input. If you have a link, please provide it.

You know what? No richman or corporation ever provided a job that did NOT require the person taking the job to work. These crappy jobs all involve a whole lot of work, so "trade" did Not support anything except a whole lot of work that a richman is too lazy to do.

Global Corporations are doing to our country. Since when is it Constitutional to allow Global Corps to write and/OR influence the writing of legislation for this country???

What is the job of Congress? THEY WERE DENIED access to legislation being written for the people of this country.

Even if it was the best legislation EVER, to deny the Representatives of the American people their RIGHT to participate in legislation being written on behalf of the people THEY Are supposed to represent is simply UNACCEPTABLE.

Are you seriously defending any of this? Do you want Global Corps writing OUR legislation? Even participating in the writing of it while denying those WE ELECTED to even SEE what they are up?

That alone should be enough for any American to vehemenly oppose it. And apparently it has been, since a MAJORITY of Americans DO oppose it!

But we don't count apparently, the American People don't COUNT, and worse, nor do our elected officials.


Bernie is 100% correct, we no longer live in a democracy. Our nation has been handed over to Oligarchs.

and illustrates beautifully why she cannot be trusted on her "opposition"

Which is exactly what HRC did. Good for her. I'm not ever sure if I agree with her, personally I'm waiting to see more of the details, and I don't have the same kind of access that she has. But, regardless of whether I end up agreeing with her on this, it makes total sense for her to wait until the final version before taking a stand on a major foreign policy initiative.

Sure, some people are outright protectionists, which I suppose is also principled, although completely wrong-headed. HRC is not that, and I'm glad. Instead she decides based on the merits of this particular agreement.

It's her baby, and now she is trying to wash it down the drain.

I am opposed to these multilateral corporate and greedy agreements in principle.

Hillary should have been too.

Had she been against multilateral trade agreements in principle, this agreement would never have been signed.

I am not a protectionist.

I believe that we should negotiate trade agreements with one country at a time and thereby retain our ability to sanction countries that abuse human rights, trade unfairly, manipulate currency or otherwise violate our principles and the standards of fair play and commerce by withholding or imposing taxes on certain trade at our discretion.

I support trade, but not these multinational trade agreements.

And I certainly do not think that corporations -- multinational corporations that do not pay their fair share of taxes in the US in many cases -- should play any role in negotiating trade agreements in the name of the American people.

strong labor and environmental protections. She doesn't believe that the current TPP lives up to that promise. It's not complicated.

No, she's not against multilateral trade agreements in principle. And, yes, if you are then you are a protectionist. Whether or not there are just two or multiple countries in a trade agreement is irrelevant, what matters is whether the terms of the agreement are good or not. If you simply reject all trade agreements with more than two parties, then you are a protectionist.

While you and I did not know what and do not know what the provisions in the TPP are, Hillary was the Secretary of State. It was her job to know what was being negotiated and what the non-negotiable issues were.

I am not a protectionist.

The reason that the participation of multiple countries is a problem is that once we agree to a multinational agreement, it is very hard to refuse in whole or part to trade with one partner to the agreement.

When we enter into a complex, multinational agreement, we give up our ability to use the leverage of our trade or refusal to trade with a country that violates human rights or treats workers unfairly or manipulates currencies or does other things that are against fair play.

A multinational agreement takes away from our national sovereignty.

It gives up our autonomy in trade to the agreement and the body that manages and enforces the agreement.

That is why I oppose multinational trade agreements. They are incompatible with our concept of national sovereignty and our independence as a nation. They are not compatible with our Constitution.

court. How do I know that? Because the other treaties set up these kangaroo, corporate courts. That's what the treaties are really about, I strongly suspect -- trying to diminish the independence of the member countries' populations and democracies.

These treaties are just corporate coups.

Let's start by defining trade.

: the activity or process of buying, selling, or exchanging goods or services

: the amount of things or services that are bought and sold : the money made by buying and selling things or services

: the act of exchanging one thing for another

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trade

Our trade deficit indicates that we are buying a lot from other countries but not selling as much as we buy. That is not trading. That is buying. We are not selling. We are not exchanging goods and services in sufficient quantities to prevent damage to our domestic economy.

Trad -- the act of exchanging . . . . . We are not exchanging goods and services. We are consuming goods and services produced often by low-paid labor in other countries.

Our current trade policies -- our agreements like the WTO, NAFTA and trade with China have damaged our economy. We have lost thousands and thousands of industrial plants and millions of industrial jobs that used to pay well.

The NAFTA, WTO, TPP corporate coups have already hurt our country too much. We need individual trade agreements with countries that want to pay their workers well, sell us products BUT ALSO BUY PRODUCTS FROM US.

The money is flowing from our country and economy into the coffers of the 1% of the world that skims the profit that is created by the difference in the low cost of producing goods and services in other countries and the high prices at which they are sold here.

All those people on the telephone that you talk to who are in India? They are or at least used to be called service representatives. That used to be a good job for Americans. I did that job way back in the 1970s. Today, we still have some service representatives but most of those good jobs have been outsourced to India and the Philippines and other slave-labor economies (compared to what an American would earn doing those jobs). Those jobs require decent language and math skills. Americans should be doing those jobs because Americans' consumption generates those jobs. When those jobs are done overseas, it throws our economy off balance. If we produced goods or services for export that balanced out the loss of those jobs, then we would not have the huge trade deficit that we have.

Now let's define protectionist.

A protectionist is one who rejects trade and wants the government to prevent it by protecting the local or domestic economy.

: an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protectionist

I am not opposed to trade. I want fair trade which means that we only restrict trade with foreign producers who violate human rights or when a country wants to sell its goods and services to us but refuses to buy goods and services from us.

I am not a protectionist. But I want real trade. I want jobs in America as well as in other countries. I want other countries to buy from us as much as we buy from them.

The trade agreements we have have led to terrible imbalances and our very large trade deficit. That means that we are not really trading. We are buying a lot but not selling an equal amount of goods and services. That's not trade. Eventually it will either bankrupt us or we will wake up and find that we don't own property or companies in our own country, that they are owned by strangers from other nations who do not care about our country.

Those beautiful parks we have. Those wonderful views from our mountains. Our forests, our lakes -- all of that beauty is coveted around the world. Corporations want our parks, our forests, and the resources, the valuable resources that are within them.

We do need to have the economic independence to be able to protect our country. These trade agreements are a set-up to deprive us of that economic (and political, but that is yet another story) independence.

I hope I have made this clear.

If Hillary Clinton says that she's against any trade agreement with ISDS (an arbitration process for corporations which shut out everyone else), that will impress me.

It demonstrates unprincipled, 'I'll tell you anything' politics as usual Washington insider bullshit.

election.

We should not pick Hillary as our candidate. We need Bernie, a candidate who has principles. He has changed his mind for good reasons on rare occasions.

But Hillary is a political acrobat who flip-flops across the stage from issue to issues

It's shameless, and as you said total political bullshit.

We need trade. We need fair trade. Currently, we do not have fair trade. In WA, a good trade agreement would be vital to our economy and would be good for farmers and for manufacturers.

The key, is "good" that includes protections for workers, environment, etc. Clinton's stance is reasonable. A good trade deal is vital to our economy.

Sanders' stance is...bizarre. He wants no fair trade because they have had negative outcomes in the past. Instead of assisting in making a fair deal with the world, he wants to...what? What will happen if the US opts out?

People here should be educating themselves before bellowing from the rooftops.

"Trade" is a propaganda word they use because everybody supports "trade".

Can you please provide me the content of the agreement? You seem to know alot about it.

TIA

They'll never answer.

How could you not know that?

trade with countries that, for instance, violate human rights or trade unfairly or do not respect our copyrights and patents.

These mulitnational trade agreements bind us pretty much to all or nothing and to trade courts that can nullify in effect the laws passed by our democratically elected bodies, federal, state and local through the imposition of fines and other penalties.

I am for trade but against these international trade agreements.

countries or a country.

I oppose these multinational trade agreements because when we join these pacts we give up our independent, sovereign ability as a nation to refuse to trade with a specific nation, let's say, because it permits slavery or other violations of human rights.

We need to retain our independent ability to impose tariffs on countries when our principles demand it. These multinational trade agreements are incompatible with our Constitution.

Their rules override the ability of our Congress and legislative bodies at all levels to pass laws and regulations that we as a people want. They bind us to an international standard in our trade and other laws that limit our national sovereignty.

I am not opposed to trade. But I want fair trade that does not interfere with our national sovereignty.

We should have one-on-one trade agreements.

The idea and ideal of lifting all boats. It could easily be done. But as you say, it would require the inclusion of "We the people" into the mix and that just wouldn't fly.

The only "democracy" allowed is in the interests of the corporations and its shareholders. The more joining forces with Wall St, the less of a chance for all our Main Streets.

Look at the small towns in our Midwest. They are beginning to look like the ghost towns left in the West after the gold rush. The factories and small businesses that made them into communities have been replaced by coffee shops, fast food restaurants and bars in the lucky towns.

in other towns, buildings are empty with an occasional "antique" store where a real store used to exist.

I recognize that change is inevitable, and technology has rendered a lot of jobs superfluous, but what is happening in small towns in many parts of America is very troubling. Walmart and the big box stores and chain groceries that funnel their profits not into the local communities but to Wall Street and the 1% have replaced community. Culture, the small-town culture of America, will be next to go, because this kind of Main Street economy does not produce enough tax revenue to keep small-town America alive.

As a kid they would warn me that if we ever became a "socialist" nation we would all someday line up at big, drab buildings that all looked the same to get our allotments of onions and toilet paper.

Now as an adult as I traverse the nation I see those big, drab buildings that all look the same. That have the same floor plan, the same toilet paper, on the same aisle, in town after town. All thanks to the best efforts of corporations and those who by owning a share champion socialism for themselves over capitalism for all.

Mom and Pop capitalist America is gone. Socialism for Wall St and its subsidizers killed it.

That statement is NOT saying that trade is bad, and that actual trade agreements between nations are bad.

But these huge package deals that go far beyond the specifics of actual trade, and which are negotiated in secret and presented in a "vote fast and take it or leave it" manner -- those suck. Especially when they are such "one size fits all" straitjackets among many different nations.

They limit the ability of nation to pass and enforce civil laws that "violate the terms of trade" (i.e. the Corporate Imperitive). They grease the wheels for outsourcing, sweatshops and other undermining of workers here and abroad.

They impose a "neo-liberal (conservative) agenda on all nations.

Unless the TPP somehow is a complete 180-degree change of course from all of its predecessors, it's another brick in the wall of MFN, WTO,NAFTA etc. agreements that have undermined the American economy (and distorted the need for actual sustainable forms of economic development in other nations) and imposed a Multinational Corporate Agenda in the world.

was improved during ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS.

Now that it's been finalized is an appropriate time to take an informed position.

How, exactly, would she know it had not been improved?

You really want to go with yet more classified documents being mishandled?

Why isn't everyone asking that?

Other people were supposedly jumping to conclusions by deciding before the agreement was released.

be able to share it with her, if he wanted to?

So no, she doesn't have a clearance anymore.

Obama could sign an executive order that says Clinton can see this document. A couple problems with that:
1) It would be public. Got a link to it?
2) It would really piss off the Congressional Democrats that have been complaining about the treaty being classified.
3) It would mean Clinton coming out against the TPP now is a massive slap-in-the-face to Obama after he "did her a favor" by letting her see it.

He just had a column about that.

No one here seems to be complaining about that. The horrors!

that Clinton has seen more than the public. Or you were claiming that.

It appears you're now claiming Clinton's position is based on what has leaked to the public. Which then has the big problem "why'd she wait this long?". It's not like there's been a recent change in what has been leaked to the public. The last chapter to leak was months ago.

It's pretty clear she saw which way the wind was blowing, and came out with a non-specific statement that kinda sounded like a rejection yet left her room to "change her mind" later.

years. There is no excuse for her flip-flop on this other than that she realizes that Bernie is winning on this..

Pure opportunism on Hillary's part to suddenly disapprove of something that she sponsored for years. We will await her explanation as to why, now, she suddenly claims to disapprove of it.

This should be interesting.

Rather typical Hillary. She flip-flops on everything.

I do not understand how people can support her.

If she flip-flopped on an issue or two, I could understand.

But she is a regular acobat, flip-flopping all over the stage.

They think they love her when in reality she is a politician that they don't even know personally in order to love but they are still all in on emotional investment on decades of virtual acquaintance with a public image and reflex from wagon circling for a family for years.