2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWTF another of Hillary's "friends"kneecaps her
Terry McAuliffe's TPP comments do Clinton no favors
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-mcauliffe-does-clinton-no-favors-with-1469581798-htmlstory.html
"Hillary Clintons longtime friend Terry McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia and a prolific fundraiser for Democrats, just made her difficult job of pulling the Democratic Party together even tougher.
As Clinton assures restive Bernie Sanders voters that they can trust her to fight against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the massive trade deal that Sanders helped galvanize a large share of the electorate against, McAuliffe just gave them good reason to doubt her.
Asked by Politico whether Clinton will ultimately work to approve the trade deal once in office, McAuliffe said, Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Holy shit.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's what I find shocking
A slight majority of Democratic voters favor the TPP so it shouldn't be surprising to run into some here.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)With the current trade agreement.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)And, the current trade agreement and the TPP both suck.
Now, are you for the TPP or not?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Negotiated, correct some of the problems.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Terry just opened a big can of worms that need not have been even touched.
All too offen it is Hillary's "friends" are the ones who have created issues for her that were unnessary. Hillary has said that she is not for the TTP so why the F*ck is Terry bringing it up?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Right now Vietnam and Malaysia don't have to have a minimum wage or let unions elect their own officers. That's not acceptable.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...there's no reason it couldn't be a good deal. Or at least much less shitty.
But it would be a very different "it."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Glad to see you're grasping how life works.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I will repeat this one more time. Hillary has stated that she is against the TPP in its current form. If she gets the changes she wants, ones that protect the American workers among other things, she would consider supporting it.
global1
(25,241 posts)1. Other countries have to sign this deal as well - are all of them aboard or are these other countries against it too?
2. Bernie goes back to the Senate as an Independant - he says we can't let TPP pass in the lame duck session - so as a Senator can he filibuster it - like the Repugs have done with so many of Obama's bills and let it die until after the election?
3. Does Bernie have any recommended fixes that can modify TPP to make it more acceptable or does he think we should proceed without any further trade deals? Essentially - what would Bernie do (WWBD) if he was the President?
I think I just coined a new abbreviation here that we can use over the next 4 years of Hiilary's presidency - WWBD - What Would Bernie Do.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And it's the only important question. What better achievable deal do people think is out there?
global1
(25,241 posts)"Political Revolution". I don't think he will hold back warranted criticism of Madam President if he feels she's not living up to the Dems Progressive Platform.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I was asking for a better trade deal framework, not what's wrong with this one. I know what's wrong with this one. I want to know what people think would be a better idea.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)And Bernie can't filibuster it either. Obama and Congress agreed to "fast track" it last year.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/05/tpp-or-not-tpp-whats-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-should-we-support-it
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Agreements can always be renegotiated, especially ones that haven't even been ratified by Congress.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Please so some research
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)global1
(25,241 posts)if it's fast tracked through Congress and can't be filibustered then she can get by saying that she doesn't support TPP but because she was not the President yet - she couldn't do anything to stop it.
This is a way of being on both sides of the issue. Now that's a smart political maneuver.
Or am I missing something here?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Saying you're against the TPP in its current form is great, but she needs to take the next step or it has the optics of fence sitting.
She has to be vocal about the changes needed and publicly urge the president to consider those changes and to actively push for them.
vi5
(13,305 posts)Sorry if that breaks the rules but he really is. How can you be so balls deep in the political system for as long as he has and not know that you just don't say shit like that in the middle of a campaign.
Look, I know Hillary's anti-TPP stance is purely for the sake of the campaign, and probably largely because of running against Bernie in the primary. I don't like it, but I know it and I'm going to vote for her anyway for obvious reasons.
But McCaullife is someone who likes to be the most insider guy in the room, and shooting his mouth off without thinking is the way he does this.
awake
(3,226 posts)But I did not want to get it locked. I do hope people wake up and remember that what they say can hurt our candidate.
StraightRazor
(260 posts)good thing she's running against Trump or she'd have to be honest about where she stands on issues and further lessen her chances of getting elected.
This way she's essentially lucked into the 'anyone but Trump' candidate and just needs stay one degree above that cretin.
McCaullife told the truth - one that HRC supports don't want getting out, but you can't blame him for her positions.
So many Democrats under the bus at this point just to get her elected it's amazing that the wheels still touch the ground - this is 'Stronger Together'?
vi5
(13,305 posts)My McCaullife is an idiot statement was as much that I hate his position and his style of Democrat as it was anything else.
And to answer your question I'm sure there are many other stances 'purely for the sake of the campaign". Which is what pains me about this election more than any other in my lifetime.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)They will make some minor changes and claim it protects the working people and ram it thru.
I think our side underestimates how much that the average person is against free trade and thinks they can pull the same bs they did in the 90's again by assuring us with these modifications that it will be better.
I think if we win the way Hillary settles the trust deficit for her next run is to spend the first 2 years only doing things that are going to help average people.
I thought NAFTA was a bad idea but in the 90's I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt because he was overall a good pres.
However now we have experience and it's not a good thing. I don't think they can use the same playbook, or they can but they won't win re election if people keep losing good jobs.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Clinton herself has not stated she supports the TPP. I support fair trade as well but the TPP is not fair.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)But maybe that was the idea, so she will have to address it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)There was supposed to be a currency manipulation clause that never made it in and she wants it in there.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I prefer to listen to Clinton herself.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I've never liked the guy. I certainly hope he comes out and says he 'misspoke' or yes, this will cause problems for Hillary.