General Discussion

aspirant

(3,533 posts)

17. "create more good jobs at home"

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 07:19 AM

Apr 2015

Good, then insist the TPP says, if ! million new jobs aren't created in the USA in 2 years then we will consider the agreement null and void.

No more hoping for change,

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HRC on the TPP: Hedging and essentially a whole lot of nothing [View all] cali Apr 2015 OP

Weird how our 'Dem' heroes don't want transparency on this! dmosh42 Apr 2015 #1

The Labor Party is Dead... pipoman Apr 2015 #16

Yes. joshcryer Apr 2015 #2

Agreed that geopolitical reasons are a significant piece- but by no means the sum total cali Apr 2015 #4

Foreign corporations. joshcryer Apr 2015 #5

fine, but let's just say that involves a lot- from pharmaceutical prices to intellectual cali Apr 2015 #6

Then we need a SOPA / net neutrality style fight. joshcryer Apr 2015 #22

It has nothing to do with what society wants, it has to do with maximum profits for corporations. nt A Simple Game Apr 2015 #40

It is worse than that. It will take away Congress' right to negotiate Trade Deals and give it to sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #61

What is our national security anymore but what helps the bottom line of our supposed 'owners'... nt haikugal Apr 2015 #3

I'd like to know specifically what she means by that. I think I know cali Apr 2015 #7

I think you're right.. haikugal Apr 2015 #8

"China uses soft power" Depaysement Apr 2015 #34

This message was self-deleted by its author haikugal Apr 2015 #38

So it is basically just disaster capitalism salib Apr 2015 #31

Fareed Zakaria is doing a bit on China today fadedrose Apr 2015 #73

Worthy of the "Ministry of Truth." Downwinder Apr 2015 #9

sadly, yes. This doesn't bode well. She is not a champion on economic issues for cali Apr 2015 #11

Hillary is a champion on economic issues for her corporate donors, gotta give her that. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #26

Oh, you noticed that, too? Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #10

good observation- and one I didn't see cali Apr 2015 #12

With wishy-washy statements like that, hard to imagine Hillary standing up to her banker pals who fund her candidacy. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #28

And in fact I read an article just a few days ago truebluegreen Apr 2015 #33

Why SHOULD the banksters be worried bout Hillary? There's neva a "wink-wink" when Elizabeth goes after those fuckin fatcats. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #41

EgZactly. nt truebluegreen Apr 2015 #43

One word, "willing", artfully inserted - typical Clinton-speak Divernan Apr 2015 #42

I agree with Hillary's specific policy statement. Sancho Apr 2015 #13

He has said the same thing- multiple times. cali Apr 2015 #14

I don't "believe" in any particular candidate.... Sancho Apr 2015 #27

Regarding popular policies and pressure swaying politicians, truebluegreen Apr 2015 #37

I see public pressure making changes all the time.... Sancho Apr 2015 #62

I would posit that the phenomenon that has come and gone truebluegreen Apr 2015 #64

I'm not convinced... Sancho Apr 2015 #65

If wages are high enough, and cost-of-living is low enough truebluegreen Apr 2015 #67

I understand that...but it's not the first time the middle class was MIA. Sancho Apr 2015 #69

We could vote in ways to do it again... truebluegreen Apr 2015 #71

As I remember it...Carter didn't get rolled over because of his principles. HereSince1628 Apr 2015 #25

Exact same load of shit Bill swore nafta would bring pipoman Apr 2015 #15

No doubt Hillary was all up in Bill's grill over NAFTA in defense of Americann workers. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #29

"create more good jobs at home" aspirant Apr 2015 #17

I like that. pie in the sky but I good pie cali Apr 2015 #19

Make it pecan pie, my fav. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #30

Corporate security. Enthusiast Apr 2015 #18

security or cali Apr 2015 #20

There's not a lot she can say until negotiations wrap up. She can't comment on msanthrope Apr 2015 #21

+1 joshcryer Apr 2015 #23

I disagree. There would be nothing problematic in her saying cali Apr 2015 #24

Actually. ....that would generate questions she can't answer yet...specifically, msanthrope Apr 2015 #35

She could comment on the specifics of the TPA (fast track) Jim Lane Apr 2015 #32

That was the issue raised by the Washington Examiner this week.....they know msanthrope Apr 2015 #36

About Rand Paul Jim Lane Apr 2015 #48

Why can't Hillary reveal the TPP? Oh, that's right it's a big secret. A Simple Game Apr 2015 #49

Yes....when you have multinational negotiations, they tend to be secret. msanthrope Apr 2015 #51

The TPA bill is not secret. Where does Hillary stand on that? Jim Lane Apr 2015 #54

And maybe she will speak on it. Or maybe she'll support the President by msanthrope Apr 2015 #57

Before the TPP was leaked I knew more about the Iran deal. A Simple Game Apr 2015 #55

I don't understand why this one needs to be secret. People need to know the details... Violet_Crumble Apr 2015 #70

Fascinated by the depth of denial that is demanded of us. woo me with science Apr 2015 #39

lol, it's ALL about the money...gotta pay to play. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2015 #45

word. KG Apr 2015 #46

Which is EXACTLY what Martin O'Malley said about Free Trade VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #44

Your imputation of sexism is horseshit. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #50

Yes he has said so recently....but I made my point and I stand by it... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2015 #52

News flash: 2000 is, as you say, "in the past" and is not 2015. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #53

Hillary had lots to say about "free trade" while campaigning in 2007-8 nationalize the fed Apr 2015 #68

It isn't a whole bunch of nothing, because details of the TPP are not clear at all. That is what still_one Apr 2015 #47

She's mastered the art of political coyness about issues. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #56

... ND-Dem Apr 2015 #58

Let's say for the sake of argument, she knows less than we know right now. Why did she not come out sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #59

She thought TPP was just fine in 2012. Here she is heaping praise on it. pa28 Apr 2015 #60

Yeah what could be bad about a deal that we won't know the details to for four years!? Rex Apr 2015 #63

Empty, Goldman-approved CYA rhetoric. hifiguy Apr 2015 #66

I'm just a dummy, but fadedrose Apr 2015 #72