CNN: Clinton Interview with Jake Tapper, Vows to Work with Sanders, More, April 29

[appalachiablue]

[BootinUp]

1. Great job Hillary. K & R

[houston16revival]

6. It really was a great interview

She knows issues, she's careful not to promise too much, she's very
tempered by reality, she has a quick mind. Sounds like she knows Obama
promised liberal things in campaigning 2008, but reality was something else.

She occupies the mainstream, the common sense positions. It's a sound place
to be in the political spectrum.

[LiberalElite]

12. And it would be Obama's third term after all when people want CHANGE eom

[zalinda]

2. She'll say anything to become President. I don't trust her. eom

[houston16revival]

7. I don't trust your suspicions

You offer no facts, no logic, just your mistrust.

Political reality is complex, compromises must be made, that's the nature
of politics.

[LiberalElite]

13. Please

do elaborate - in more than two sentences, if it's sooo complex.

[azurnoir]

3. that's our hillary

[JDPriestly]

4. Hillary's stance on our trade agreements ignores the fact that these treaties

establish tribunals that are set up to be superior to the sovereignty of the people of the United States.

The highest law of our land pursuant to our Constitution is the Constitution and the treaties.

Our Constitution can be amended by the will of the people as provided in our Constitution. It is difficult to amend our Constitution, but it has been done many times and can be done again.

These treaties cannot be amended by the people of the United States as easily as our Constitution.

Yet these trade agreements/treaties set up tribunals that issue final judgments that cannot be challenged by the people of the member nations exercising their sovereign rights to govern themselves. These trade agreements establish tribunals that can nullify the basic right of citizens of a country to self-government when the laws passed by the citizens and their representatives offend the interests of corporations.

Unlike our Constitution, there are no provisions in these treaties that allow nations and sovereign peoples to challenge the decisions of the trade agreements' enforcement tribunals.

I find that to be a terrible aspect of the trade agreements. Hillary and those who support the agreements ignore this aspect of them at our (we the citizens) peril.

My opposition to the trade agreements isn't just about jobs although the jobs lost due to them are very, very important and Hillary's solution for those who lose their careers, their jobs due to trade agreements is pathetic.

My opposition is more importantly about the danger these treaties/agreements pose to our right to self-government.

I agree with the concept that we should have international criminal courts that defend the human rights of the people that have the authority to try and convict as appropriate the leaders of nations who violate those human rights.

But I cannot agree with the concept that trade agreements provide for tribunals that can impose fines on nations, fines that are to be paid to corporations by the sovereign people of sovereign nations for the passage of laws by the people. The will of the people must always supersede and prevail over the interests of corporations and the decisions of tribunals established by trade agreements.

We should not agree to tribunals that can nullify the will of a people as expressed legally and democratically by elected representatives of a country or supersede a nation's democratically determined laws by imposing fines or damages awards against sovereign nations and peoples. This is not a clear explanation of this fundamental and important concept, but it is the best I can do at this time.

The trade agreement tribunals are there to enforce legalized lawlessness that places the interests of corporations above those of the democratic institutions of the member countries.

Hillary Clinton is not addressing that fundamental moral issue.

Thomas Jefferson would be horrified by these trade agreements and the tribunals they establish.

A nation cannot nullify its own sovereignty by signing a trade agreement.

That is because that sovereignty abides in the people of the nation and cannot be superseded by a trade tribunal or government decisions.

No government has the right to dispense with the sovereignty of its people. That is what has been attempted in these trade agreements. These agreements are setting the stage for serious problems, disputes and injustices in the future.

[obamneycare]

5. Trade Deal Fact-check

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

(Watch from 11:18-11:30)

...I've said very clearly that I will not support any trade agreement that I don't think creates more good jobs with rising incomes. That's why I'm against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's why I voted against the only multilateral trade agreement that came before me when I was in the Senate.

It is true that as the Senator from New York, she voted against the CAFTA Implementation Bill (HR 3045), in 2005.



However, before that, she voted in favor of the:

US-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (HR 2738)

US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (HR 2739)

and the

US-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (HR 5684)



We rate this claim:

[img][/img] Mostly False.

[houston16revival]

9. She obviously felt differently about the trade

deals with small countries

Politicians always have an escape clause, and that's the nature of political
reasoning

Posting giant logos about your thoughts on veracity is very hypocritical
because we could say the same thing about your thoughts: Mostly false.

[whereisjustice]

11. hahahah "small countries"... because we already have Mexico, China and India... and she

"the big countries" continues to support advocate and pimp for the trade deals destroying American lives so that a slave China, India or Mexico can work for $7 a day.

[obamneycare]

14. Y'know what, upon closer examination...

I guess she technically gave herself an out by using the word, "multilateral". The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines multilateral as:

Definition of multilateral

1: having many sides

2: involving or participated in by more than two nations or parties <multilateral agreements>

In that respect, CAFTA, to my knowledge was indeed the only multilateral trade agreement that came before her in the Senate, in that it involved more than two parties (US-Guatemala-El Salvador-Honduras-Costa Rica-Nicaragua-Dominican Republic). Each of the other trade deals that she voted for, involved only two member nations.

Is there a substantive distinction in the harm to American workers posed by multilateral trade deals versus multiple, bilateral trade deals? This is something I am not qualified to answer, but I strongly suspect there is not.

While her legalese statement is not an outright falsehood, it is nevertheless intentionally misleading.



Our ruling: still Mostly False, but with a smaller icon.

[img][/img]

[whereisjustice]

8. Lying Hillary... once again. She supported the most devistating trade deals ... decimated

communities and workers in America. She's lying. Again.

[houston16revival]

10. You're lying again