HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Hillary Clinton's Busines...

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:29 PM

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

On her 79th and probably last overseas trip as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a pit stop in the Czech Republic. One purpose of the 11-hour visit on Dec. 3, squeezed between NATO talks on the future of Afghanistan and the Syrian civil war, was to make a personal appeal to Czech Prime Minister Petr Nečas on behalf of Westinghouse Electric, which is vying for a contract to build a nuclear power plant there. The company is locked in a $10 billion bidding war with a state-owned Russian energy giant, and Clinton pressed the Czech officials about the wisdom of depending on Vladimir Putin’s Russia for something as essential as electricity. Westinghouse Chief Executive Danny Roderick, who’s still awaiting a decision, says Clinton’s intervention made a big impression on the Czechs: “I was proud that she was in the trenches with me.”

In four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Clinton, who is expected to step down this month, has made dozens of similar sales pitches on behalf of U.S. companies. In 2009 she toured a Boeing plant in Moscow and met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to persuade state-owned Russian Technologies to buy 50 Boeing 737s instead of jets made by Airbus. That $3.7 billion deal was one of several large contracts Clinton helped clinch for Boeing (BA). In December 2011, Lockheed Martin (LMT) announced a $7.2 billion deal to upgrade Japan’s aging fighter jet fleet, beating out Eurofighter. Clinton advocated for the contract with her Japanese counterpart at the United Nations General Assembly. In February 2012, Space Systems/Loral, which builds communications satellites in Palo Alto, won a contract for equipment to create a national broadband network in Australia. Clinton met with former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd several times to press for the deal. Last summer, Clinton’s undersecretary for economic growth, Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs (GS) vice chair, took executives from Google (GOOG), MasterCard (MA), and Dow Chemical (DOW) to Myanmar to network with government officials, the first such meeting since sanctions against the country were lifted in 2012.

...
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.




95 replies, 24203 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP) (Original post)
antigop Jul 2013 OP
DURHAM D Jul 2013 #1
Purveyor Jul 2013 #2
antigop Jul 2013 #3
Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #75
OhioChick Jul 2013 #4
antigop Jul 2013 #5
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #6
Iliyah Jul 2013 #9
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #13
markpkessinger Jan 2014 #87
4dsc Jul 2013 #20
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #21
antigop Jul 2013 #23
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #24
cantbeserious Jul 2013 #27
Bill USA Jul 2013 #55
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #61
Bill USA Aug 2013 #65
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #67
Bill USA Aug 2013 #70
ReRe Feb 2015 #91
Bill USA Jul 2013 #59
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #62
Bill USA Jul 2013 #54
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #63
Bill USA Aug 2013 #64
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #68
markpkessinger Jan 2014 #88
Bill USA Jan 2014 #89
markpkessinger Jan 2014 #90
Bill USA Jul 2013 #57
MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #7
Bill USA Jul 2013 #58
MotherPetrie Jul 2013 #60
appal_jack Jul 2013 #8
emsimon33 Jul 2013 #11
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #25
newfie11 Feb 2015 #93
Bill USA Jul 2013 #56
Iliyah Jul 2013 #10
antigop Jul 2013 #12
Bill USA Aug 2013 #66
antigop Jul 2013 #14
antigop Jul 2013 #15
OhioChick Jul 2013 #16
antigop Jul 2013 #17
OhioChick Jul 2013 #18
antigop Jul 2013 #46
undeterred Jul 2013 #19
antigop Jul 2013 #22
rhett o rick Jul 2013 #26
HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #28
antigop Jul 2013 #29
Duppers Jul 2013 #30
antigop Jul 2013 #31
AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #32
antigop Jul 2013 #33
AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #34
antigop Jul 2013 #35
AtomicKitten Jul 2013 #36
antigop Jul 2013 #37
Cirque du So-What Jul 2013 #38
antigop Jul 2013 #39
Cirque du So-What Jul 2013 #40
antigop Jul 2013 #41
Cirque du So-What Jul 2013 #42
antigop Jul 2013 #43
Cirque du So-What Jul 2013 #45
bvar22 Feb 2015 #92
antigop Jul 2013 #44
KoKo Jul 2013 #47
antigop Jul 2013 #48
antigop Jul 2013 #49
antigop Jul 2013 #50
yurbud Jul 2013 #51
antigop Jul 2013 #52
OhioChick Jul 2013 #53
antigop Aug 2013 #69
pauliedangerously Aug 2013 #71
jsr Jan 2014 #85
LineReply ^
Wilms Aug 2013 #72
OhioChick Aug 2013 #73
antigop Sep 2013 #74
sarcasmo Sep 2013 #76
JDPriestly Nov 2013 #77
antigop Nov 2013 #78
JDPriestly Nov 2013 #79
jsr Nov 2013 #80
antigop Nov 2013 #81
NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #82
LineReply ^
Wilms Nov 2013 #83
Progressive dog Jan 2014 #84
antigop Jan 2014 #86
OhioChick Apr 2015 #94
Paka Nov 2015 #95

Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:31 PM

1. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:40 PM

2. I'm not going to touch 'this'. I'm in enough hot water around this place as it is... :) eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:41 PM

3. I guess Business Week is a "hater/basher". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 09:09 PM

75. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:04 PM

4. She played a "leading part in drafting" the TPP POS?

Speaks volumes.

NAFTA decimated Ohio and from what I've heard, TPP is NAFTA on steroids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:05 PM

5. That's what Business Week claims...and all of those million miles....how many were for corporations?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:02 AM

6. Ms. Clinton isnt a friend of the 99%. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:16 AM

9. Rand Paul is

yeah. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:40 AM

13. I appreciate that you agree. But I dont understand your fixation on Rand Paul.

 

How sad that we have gotten to the point that we will settle for anyone as long as there is someone worse. The Lesser of Evils Theory has gotten us where we are today. Why cant we hold out for those that meet Democratic principles?

The Conservative Democrats are killing the party. They are willing to settle for anything their leaders give them. Always relying on the "It's better than __________ (fill in the blank)."

If you are happy with the way things are going, then vote for Ms. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:41 PM

87. +1000! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:19 AM

20. No Hillary in '16

 

Your statement is a correct one.

Convincing that 99% is the hard part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:34 AM

21. Ms. Clinton will get the backing of the 1% of which she is a member in high standing.

 

The 99% wont get a choice. The choices in 2016 will be Clinton vs. Christie or Clinton vs. one of the clowns.

on edit there is another possibility, Christie switches parties and runs against one of the clowns. The centrists here would love that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:50 PM

23. "Clinton’s undersecretary for economic growth, Robert Hormats, former Goldman Sachs (GS) vice chair"

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #23)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:54 PM

24. How can anyone be so naive to think that ms. Clinton will do anything but continue

 

the current policies toward Wall Street and Booz-Allen-Hamilton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 02:00 PM

27. Correct - Ms. Clinton Would Validate And Reaffirm All The Worst Aspects Of The DLC

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 07:19 PM

55. yeah, I was really dissappointed when she didn't pick Richard Simmons for that job. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #55)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 08:15 PM

61. Is that the best you've got? LOL back. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #61)

Thu Aug 1, 2013, 06:03 PM

65. "LOL back"? Pretty pathetic, even for a Rightwing shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #65)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 02:22 PM

67. Name calling means you've hit bottom. "Rightwing shill."

 

I support Democratic principles and you support Obama. I guess we will never agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #67)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 04:56 PM

70. I just identified you as a part of group of people who have come on this site to create phony

discord within Democrats. You claim this is 'name-calling' which is obviously wrong. Name calling generally an attempt to characterize someone as somehow a morally inferior class of being. I have said I think you are engaging in a dishonest rhetorical practice of creating what appears to be actual disagreement within the democratic camp. I identified you as a member of those individuals who are accurately characterized as operating in the interests of the GOP while passing themselves off as members of the Democratic party of the Democratic persuasion, if you will. I think, based on the outlandish insinuations of this thread which you have agreed with or contributed to, this is a reasonable conclusion.

That isn't name-calling but I can see how you would want to misrepresent my identification of your tactic.

You claim to have devined my political leanings (re Obama) without any evidence (at least none cited). But this approach is consistent with methods of the article referred to in OP, which you find so appealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 07:46 AM

91. You're doing talking points...

... that's all you've got, and by-damn you're sticking to them. We welcome your hate, though, like FDR did. Why don't we talk real issues?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Bill USA (Reply #59)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:16 PM

62. Well she may have you convinced but not me. She is firmly tied in with Wall Street. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 07:10 PM

54. uh-huh, and that's why the RightWingnuts hate her so much, cuzz she's a champion of the 1% LOL!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #54)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:20 PM

63. If she becomes president you better believe that Bernanke, Summers and Geitner will continue

 

their love dance with Wall Street. You better believe that Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, Herr Mueller, and torturer Comey will remain in charge. Free trade will be the song of the day as the middle class disappears. Her wealth makes her a strong member of the 1%.

She does not represent the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 1, 2013, 05:59 PM

64. you GOPers are really running scared of Hillary aren't you. LOL!! 85% rating in Senate by AFL-CIO

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

Her voting record in the Senate:

more details here (if you can stand to read it...LOL).


[font size="3"]
No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
•Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/its-the-economy-stupid_b_67667.html
In contrast, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls address the need for good jobs. Senator Hillary Clinton said, "Let's make sure the people who work hard every day can actually support their families and save for the future."


•Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
•Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages. (Dec 2006)
•Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, “New Jobs for New York”. (Oct 2006)
Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
•Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
•Recently “we’re in it together” became “you’re on your own”. (Sep 1996)
•Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
•Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
•Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
•Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
•Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
•Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
•Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #64)

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 04:02 PM

68. Really? You are calling me a GOP'er? And "right-wing" shill earlier? Seriously?

 

You apparently dont want to have a decent discussion. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 05:46 PM

88. Rightwingers can hate for any number of reasons -- few of them rational

Plain old sexism explains a lot of the right's reaction to Hillary (just as racism explains a lot of the right's reaction to President Obama). As we've seen with President Obama, even when he endorses positions that the right has historically supported, their knee-jerk reaction will be to oppose him. So is it that hard to believe a similar dynamic is at work with respect to Hillary? I think the right can almost never be understood in terms of simple support (or not) for policy positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #88)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:35 PM

89. The rabid Right believe in nothing. They have no philosophy, only tactics.


Most of them don't realize this of course. They choose hypocrisy as preferable than a frightening existence of nothingness.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #89)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:40 PM

90. Yes, but that's my point . . .

. . . You implied above that Hillary couldn't be the corporatist many accuse her of being, because if she were, the right wouldn't hate her so much. My point is that the right's hatred of Hillary is not, in any case, based on her relative degree of support, or lack thereof, for causes the right claims it supports. Thus the fact that the right hates her doesn't really prove anything concerning her corporatist leanings one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 07:54 PM

57. Clinton's voting record in Senate on Minimum wage & rated an 85% pro Labor voting record by AFL-CIO

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

Her voting record in the Senate:

more details here (if you can stand to read it...LOL).


[font size="3"]
No salary increase for Congress until minimum wage increased. (Jul 2007)
•Would accept minimum wage as president. (Jul 2007)
Stand up for unions; organize for fair wages. (Jun 2007)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/its-the-economy-stupid_b_67667.html
In contrast, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls address the need for good jobs. Senator Hillary Clinton said, "Let's make sure the people who work hard every day can actually support their families and save for the future."


•Get tough with China and bring jobs back home. (Feb 2007)
•Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages. (Dec 2006)
•Passed 2 planks of 7-plank platform, “New Jobs for New York”. (Oct 2006)
Minimum wage should be tied to congressional salaries. (Jun 2006)
•Pushed for extension of unemployment insurance. (Feb 2004)
The working poor deserve a living wage. (Oct 1999)
America can afford to raise the minimum wage. (Sep 1999)
•Recently “we’re in it together” became “you’re on your own”. (Sep 1996)
•Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Nov 2008)
•Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
•Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
•Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
•Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
•Protect overtime pay protections. (Jun 2003)
Rated 85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006)
Sponsored bill linking minimum wage to Congress' pay raises. (May 2006)
•Extend unemployment compensation during recession. (Jan 2008)
[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:17 AM

7. Helping the rich get richer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Bill USA (Reply #58)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 08:00 PM

60. She also voted to screw people at the end of their rope with the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

 

Helping the rich get richer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:21 AM

8. C'mon, Democrats.

 

C'mon, Democrats. Haven't we seen the A-Clinton-as-President-Sells-Us-Out-to-Corporations-via-Free-Trade-Agreements movie already?

It was lousy.

There is no need to make a sequel. It would suck even worse.

Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Wendy Davis, or even Al Franken for President. Not Hillary.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:32 AM

11. Agreed.

That's why I supported Obama over her and what good did it do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emsimon33 (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:55 PM

25. The 1% Oligarchs decide on the two choices for President. Then they let us vote and we

 

pretend it's democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 03:27 AM

93. ++++++++++++++++++

Boy if that isn't the truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 07:23 PM

56. wow the GOPers are REALLY scared of Hillary. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:32 AM

10. ok

I have my own mind. Thank you very much. Oh it call democracy, remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:37 AM

12. who paid for the corporate trip to Myanmar -- did the US taxpayer pay for it? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 1, 2013, 06:29 PM

66. Hillary Clinton is a Martian, uh-huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:13 PM

14. 385 views. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:36 PM

15. 396 views. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 06:43 PM

16. No one wants to touch this one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 07:04 PM

17. Is Business Week a "hater/basher"? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:29 PM

18. Not that I'm aware of n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 13, 2013, 04:54 PM

46. misogynist? sexist? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 07:35 AM

19. Fundraising for 2016 will be a walk in the park for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undeterred (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 11:07 AM

22. Lockheed, Boeing, Master Card, Google --- yep. The corporations will love her! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 01:57 PM

26. Dont forget Walmart. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 02:27 PM

28. The LAST thing this country needs is yet another corporatist in the WH.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 02:58 PM

29. +100 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:32 PM

30. this deserves more DU attention.

Nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #30)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:33 PM

31. yes, it does. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:40 PM

32. I missed this TPP story entirely.

 

thanks for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 01:43 PM

33. thanks for the kick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:01 PM

34. glad to do so

 

I knew about Keystone http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353 but not TPP.

It is very disheartening to know all this in advance knowing she will put her big shoes on in the primary if there will even be one or go straight to coronation. Good lord I hope not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 02:08 PM

35. watch it, Atomic, or you'll be called a "hater" or something nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 8, 2013, 06:19 PM

36. !!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 08:29 AM

37. or a "basher" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:12 PM

38. Someone is conspicuous in his absence from this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:13 PM

39. several others as well nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:15 PM

40. Do tell

Can you recommend a way of finding out who 'got it' that doesn't resemble an Easter egg hunt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:17 PM

41. Not sure what you are asking but maybe this will help

Do you see any of the posters from this group?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

<edit to add>: Why not? Maybe they missed this thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #41)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:21 PM

42. I misunderstood

I thought you meant others had been PPRed, but I see that you were talking about Hillary Clinton's ardent boosters instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:24 PM

43. maybe they don't follow the Good Reads forum???? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 10, 2013, 05:30 PM

45. Maybe they should start

Becoming a well-rounded individual is a worthy aspiration. Beats the alternative, which is to become so narrowly focused that any & all criticism is strictly forbidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 06:34 PM

92. I checked.

Looks like there are only 3 active posters to that group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 12:48 PM

47. Recommend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #47)

Sun Jul 14, 2013, 12:50 PM

48. thanks, KoKo. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Jul 16, 2013, 02:51 PM

49. 1037 views nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 08:36 AM

50. 1140 views. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 12:33 AM

51. so the rich don't "need" government? How many of us could get a cabinet secretary to make trips on

our behalf?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 25, 2013, 07:46 PM

52. we don't count. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:43 AM

53. Must read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:13 PM

69. TPP: Terrible Plutocratic Plan

http://davidswanson.org/node/4096


Maybe the first thing I would interrupt a super bowl or a state of the union to tell people about the TPP is that it creates corporate nationhood. This is something I started to focus on after interviewing Lacey Kohlmoos of Public Citizen on my radio show. Public Citizen has a website set up at ExposeTheTPP.org. Another coalition has created FlushTheTPP.org. Another is at CitizensTrade.org. And then there's a cross-border effort to organize against the TPP at TPPxborder.org. You can find pretty much everything I have to say, and much more, at those websites. You can sign up and get involved with ongoing campaigns as things develop at those websites.

Many of us have heard of corporate personhood. Corporations have been given the Constitutional rights of persons by U.S. courts over the past 40 years, including the right to spend money on elections. By corporate nationhood I mean the bestowing of the rights of nations on corporations. The TPP, drafts of which have been leaked to Public Citizen, has 29 chapters, only five of which -- according to Public Citizen's thinking -- deal with trade. The others deal with things like food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, job off-shoring, and financial regulation. Treaties, according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, are -- together with the Constitution itself -- the supreme law of the land. So U.S. laws would have to be made to comply with the TPP's rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #69)

Sun Aug 11, 2013, 04:24 PM

71. WOW!!!!!

That ought to have a thread of its own. Thanks for sharing!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #69)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 11:38 PM

85. +1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 09:57 AM

72. ^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 11:36 AM

73. Death by Corporation: America's Corporate Deathstar

Death by Corporation: America's Corporate Deathstar

Monday, 12 August 2013 09:28

"Instead of protecting US citizens, the Obama administration is enabling the ultimate corporate "Deathstar." The TransPacific Partnership will allow corporations "virtually unchecked control of our food supply, our land, air, water, wallets and our future."

More: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18115-mankind-death-by-corporation-part-iii-the-tpp-as-corporate-deathstar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2013, 08:52 PM

74. Keeping a Massive Trade Deal out of the Fast Lane

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2013, 10:11 PM

76. Clinton & a former Goldman Sachs vice chair, UGH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:18 PM

77. Thanks. I support Elizabeth Warren. A fresh view. Truly independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #77)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:57 PM

78. we need someone who will stand up for US workers nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #78)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 04:40 PM

79. I trust her to do that.

The bankers are a key problem.

Theoretically, banks make a profit by lending or investing depositors' money.

Depositors are receiving almost no interest from the banks, yet the New York bankers are receiving huge salaries plus bonuses.

Something is wrong with that picture. If banks are earning money from deposits, why are depositors earning so little interest. If banks aren't earning money from deposits, why are bankers so well paid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 06:47 PM

80. Recommend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #80)

Mon Nov 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

81. thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 06:14 PM

82. Recommended.

 

I might just have to add your OP to my sigline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:26 AM

83. ^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 08:12 PM

84. American secretaries of state are supposed to represent America

and American interests. Giving U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors sounds like something Americans could support. The Chinese might have a problem with it (and they do).
She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 05:43 PM

86. Be sure to see the video in the video forum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 11:11 PM

94. Kick n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Fri Nov 6, 2015, 09:47 PM

95. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread