General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

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

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 12:07 PM

Apr 2015

the President. That is why when Bush did this, it failed. Even Repubs were not willing to go that far.

People here seem to think this is about Obama. It is not.

He won't be president forever, will they whine when they watch say, Jeb Bush negotiating in secret Net Neutrality eg?

I hope not, because their support for this is what will help sell out our democracy and if it passes, which I hope it does not, Congress will be powerless to stop a Paul Ryan who sponsored this bill btw, from negotiating on behalf of the Working Class ALONE, in secret.

I can't believe i am seeing any support for this here on DU.

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