• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, on Sunday outlined what he said were differences between his campaign and that of the clear frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Sanders again linked the former secretary of state to the “billionaires” he says dominate US politics, but widened his criticisms to include the former secretary of state’s positions on international trade agreements, the Iraq war and the threat of climate change.

Sanders and Clinton are the only candidates so far to have declared on the Democratic side; Clinton leads polls on the issue by more than 50%. Appearing on CBS on Sunday, Sanders was asked what was wrong with Clinton as a Democratic candidate for president. “Let me give you an example,” Sanders said. “Congress is in the midst of a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP, an agreement with 12 Asian countries]. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement on the grounds that it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements that have cost us millions of jobs.”

Last month, Sanders wrote an op-ed column for the Guardian on the TPP, the largest trade deal in US history, in which he said: “The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade – an approach which benefits large multinational corporations and Wall Street, but which is a disaster for working families. The TPP must be defeated.” TPP is supported by the Obama administration but opposed by many in the Democratic party. In an interview with Yahoo Politics that was published on Saturday, Obama said a prominent voice against TPP, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, was “absolutely wrong” on the issue.

Clinton has so far handled TPP with extreme care – last month her campaign chief, John Podesta, was caught in private remarks to donors saying: “Can you make it go away?” On Sunday, Sanders broadened his attack: “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq … Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster. “On climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone pipeline. I’m not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some areas where we differ.” Sanders also repeated his determination to overturn the 2010 Citizens United supreme court decision, which gave rise to unrestrained spending on elections. “As a result of this disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision, clearly the billionaires, the Koch brothers and all this, are owning the political process,” he said. “They will determine who the candidates are. “Let me say this: if elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. And that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision because that decision is undermining US democracy. I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”
 
Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, on Sunday outlined what he said were differences between his campaign and that of the clear frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Sanders again linked the former secretary of state to the “billionaires” he says dominate US politics, but widened his criticisms to include the former secretary of state’s positions on international trade agreements, the Iraq war and the threat of climate change.

Sanders and Clinton are the only candidates so far to have declared on the Democratic side; Clinton leads polls on the issue by more than 50%. Appearing on CBS on Sunday, Sanders was asked what was wrong with Clinton as a Democratic candidate for president. “Let me give you an example,” Sanders said. “Congress is in the midst of a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP, an agreement with 12 Asian countries]. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement on the grounds that it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements that have cost us millions of jobs.”

Last month, Sanders wrote an op-ed column for the Guardian on the TPP, the largest trade deal in US history, in which he said: “The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade – an approach which benefits large multinational corporations and Wall Street, but which is a disaster for working families. The TPP must be defeated.” TPP is supported by the Obama administration but opposed by many in the Democratic party. In an interview with Yahoo Politics that was published on Saturday, Obama said a prominent voice against TPP, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, was “absolutely wrong” on the issue.

Clinton has so far handled TPP with extreme care – last month her campaign chief, John Podesta, was caught in private remarks to donors saying: “Can you make it go away?” On Sunday, Sanders broadened his attack: “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq … Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster. “On climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone pipeline. I’m not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some areas where we differ.” Sanders also repeated his determination to overturn the 2010 Citizens United supreme court decision, which gave rise to unrestrained spending on elections. “As a result of this disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision, clearly the billionaires, the Koch brothers and all this, are owning the political process,” he said. “They will determine who the candidates are. “Let me say this: if elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. And that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision because that decision is undermining US democracy. I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

He might be a dirty socialist but is right in regard to free trade,breaking up quasi monopoly banks and campaign contributions.
 
He might be a dirty socialist but is right in regard to free trade,breaking up quasi monopoly banks and campaign contributions.

You don't have to agree with everything he says to realize he seems to genuinely care about the well being of the average American. I never thought I'd vote for a socialist but Bernie Sanders is saying all the right things.
 
You don't have to agree with everything he says to realize he seems to genuinely care about the well being of the average American. I never thought I'd vote for a socialist but Bernie Sanders is saying all the right things.

Once people get over the whole socialist label stigma, they realize that socialists often have a great deal of good things to say.
 
“On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq … Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster. “On climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone pipeline. I’m not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some areas where we differ.” Sanders also repeated his determination to overturn the 2010 Citizens United supreme court decision, which gave rise to unrestrained spending on elections. “As a result of this disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision, clearly the billionaires, the Koch brothers and all this, are owning the political process,” he said. “They will determine who the candidates are. “Let me say this: if elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. And that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision because that decision is undermining US democracy. I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

Sanders is reaching.

1. On TPP, he has offered no alternatives. If his position is that the U.S. should simply refrain from liberalizing trade, that should be a non-starter IMO. It would imply nothing less than a recognition that the U.S. is at a comparative disadvantage vis-à-vis other trading partners and, worse, has no capacity to become competitive. That would be a very bleak outlook. It would also be a flawed one, as the U.S. actually has many world-class sectors.

2. The position on the Iraq War probably won't have a large impact, as Clinton has stated that she erred.

Hillary Clinton on Iraq vote: ‘I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.’ - The Washington Post

If Sanders wants to gain traction on Clinton's judgment, he will need to find numerous examples that are sufficiently compelling that the Democratic Party primary voters will conclude that her judgment is bad.

3. The Keystone Pipeline is not a litmus test as to whether one supports a public policy response to climate change. Clinton is decisively on record as supporting such a response, so there's no difference between the two of them on that issue.

This one Hillary quote about climate change is very, very important - The Washington Post

4. Clinton opposes the Citizens United decision and has indicated that she might support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

Hillary Clinton: 'I would consider' anti-Citizens United amendment | MSNBC

All said, Sanders will need to differentiate himself from Clinton on more than ideology if he is to have a chance. Specifically, I'm referring to policy substance. On the above issues, the only meaningful difference concerns trade policy, but he has yet to spell out the details of his alternative approach, so aside from perhaps intensifying support among his natural progressive constituency, it's not clear that he would gain much additional support on that position. Of course, the campaign is in its early stages, but successful differentiation will be key to his prospects in the Democratic Party's nominating process.
 
Last edited:
Once people get over the whole socialist label stigma, they realize that socialists often have a great deal of good things to say.

I still say it makes no sense for a socialist to support welfare or wage controls.
 
I still say it makes no sense for a socialist to support welfare or wage controls.

How so, or is it the argument that somehow 'basic safety nets and economic security somehow make more people poor', or something like that?
 
Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war | US news | The Guardian

Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, on Sunday outlined what he said were differences between his campaign and that of the clear frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Sanders again linked the former secretary of state to the “billionaires” he says dominate US politics, but widened his criticisms to include the former secretary of state’s positions on international trade agreements, the Iraq war and the threat of climate change.

Sanders and Clinton are the only candidates so far to have declared on the Democratic side; Clinton leads polls on the issue by more than 50%. Appearing on CBS on Sunday, Sanders was asked what was wrong with Clinton as a Democratic candidate for president. “Let me give you an example,” Sanders said. “Congress is in the midst of a debate on the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP, an agreement with 12 Asian countries]. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement on the grounds that it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements that have cost us millions of jobs.”

Last month, Sanders wrote an op-ed column for the Guardian on the TPP, the largest trade deal in US history, in which he said: “The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade – an approach which benefits large multinational corporations and Wall Street, but which is a disaster for working families. The TPP must be defeated.” TPP is supported by the Obama administration but opposed by many in the Democratic party. In an interview with Yahoo Politics that was published on Saturday, Obama said a prominent voice against TPP, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, was “absolutely wrong” on the issue.

Clinton has so far handled TPP with extreme care – last month her campaign chief, John Podesta, was caught in private remarks to donors saying: “Can you make it go away?” On Sunday, Sanders broadened his attack: “On foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq … Not only I voted against, I helped lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster. “On climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone pipeline. I’m not quite sure Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some areas where we differ.” Sanders also repeated his determination to overturn the 2010 Citizens United supreme court decision, which gave rise to unrestrained spending on elections. “As a result of this disastrous Citizens United supreme court decision, clearly the billionaires, the Koch brothers and all this, are owning the political process,” he said. “They will determine who the candidates are. “Let me say this: if elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a supreme court justice. And that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous supreme court decision because that decision is undermining US democracy. I do not believe billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

Go Bernie. :rock:rock
 
How so, or is it the argument that somehow 'basic safety nets and economic security somehow make more people poor', or something like that?

For one thing, it would seem to me a socialist would realize that welfare makes capitalism appear more equatable and thus actually strengthens its support. For another, it falls into reason that socialists would support mutual aid and reshaping ownership and management of the private sector. There is also the fact that Karl Marx himself was opposed to welfare and said it would dissuade the working class away from socialism.
 
He might be a dirty socialist but is right in regard to free trade,breaking up quasi monopoly banks and campaign contributions.

Check into him, there's more than that that you would like.
 
For one thing, it would seem to me a socialist would realize that welfare makes capitalism appear more equatable and thus actually strengthens its support. For another, it falls into reason that socialists would support mutual aid and reshaping ownership and management of the private sector. There is also the fact that Karl Marx himself was opposed to welfare and said it would dissuade the working class away from socialism.

I didnt realize Bernie Sanders was a Marxist....
 
I don't agree with Bernie on everything, though I do agree with him on a lot. But I do like that he doesn't sidestep questions and give the typical nonanswers politicians give. I could say the same about Ron Paul as well (not so much his son). I like it when a candidate says straight out what they believe regardless of whether it will be popular or not.

Right now, of all the major party candidates out there, Bernie is the only one that I believe what I see is what I get. The rest, well, I don't buy what they are selling. You are just taking a gamble that the candidate you vote for is the President you will get.
 
part 1 of 2 parts

Sanders is reaching.

1. On TPP, he has offered no alternatives.
no don, on this, you are the one found reaching
like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie has come out strong in his vocal opposition to TPP. he sees it as yet another instance where free trade is NOT found to be fair trade, such that big business realizes a bonanza and the working guy gets more international competition, holding wage rates down
his alternative is the status quo; NOT allowing our lucrative domestic market to be further exploited by foreign based companies that do not have to deal with the labor, OSHA, EPA, and collective bargaining aspects of business that our nation's business community does
NAFTA happened on bill's watch. who here truly believes hillary will act in a way different than her husband on this matter

If his position is that the U.S. should simply refrain from liberalizing trade, that should be a non-starter IMO.
straw man. share with us exactly what constitutes "liberalizing trade" under this SECRET proposed trade agreement. one supported - and partially written - by the US chamber of commerce

It would imply nothing less than a recognition that the U.S. is at a comparative disadvantage vis-à-vis other trading partners and, worse, has no capacity to become competitive./quote]
there are some industries in which we do face a comparative disadvantage. now share with us precisely what about the impact of the TPP will end that existing comparative disadvantage

That would be a very bleak outlook. It would also be a flawed one, as the U.S. actually has many world-class sectors.
yes, we do
and since no one else implied that the USA suffers a comprehensive comparative disadvantage, this is yet another straw man you have constructed to argue against

2. The position on the Iraq War probably won't have a large impact, as Clinton has stated that she erred.

Hillary Clinton on Iraq vote: ‘I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.’ - The Washington Post
then tell us, why would we now expect her to exercise better decision making on similar huge matters of national importance going forward

If Sanders wants to gain traction on Clinton's judgment, he will need to find numerous examples that are sufficiently compelling that the Democratic Party primary voters will conclude that her judgment is bad.
i would encourage him to instead point to her record of accomplishments
she stands for nothing. and her record proves it

3. The Keystone Pipeline is not a litmus test as to whether one supports a public policy response to climate change. Clinton is decisively on record as supporting such a response, so there's no difference between the two of them on that issue.

This one Hillary quote about climate change is very, very important - The Washington Post
you are quite wrong, don:
As Secretary of State, Clinton said she was “inclined” to sign-off on the pipeline, which would carry emissions-heavy oil sands from Alberta to US Gulf Coast refineries.
Hillary Clinton has a Keystone XL problem (+video) - CSMonitor.com

there is no reason why her thumbs up as secretary of state would not become a thumbs down as president regarding the keystone pipeline
Sanders and hillary are poles apart on this issue
 
part 2 of 2 parts

4. Clinton opposes the Citizens United decision and has indicated that she might support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
yes she has
in comparison, Sanders has said THIS is the question that would be a litmus test for any supreme court appointee he would advance
meanwhile, hillary is holding her wet finger in the wind of public opinion, trying to divine where she should be on this question

Hillary Clinton: 'I would consider' anti-Citizens United amendment | MSNBC

All said, Sanders will need to differentiate himself from Clinton on more than ideology if he is to have a chance.
once more, i strongly disagree with you
that they have very different ideologies is where we should be looking when making our voting decision. which of the two is going to advance our nation and its citizens' interests better than the other

Specifically, I'm referring to policy substance. On the above issues, the only meaningful difference concerns trade policy, but he has yet to spell out the details of his alternative approach, so aside from perhaps intensifying support among his natural progressive constituency, it's not clear that he would gain much additional support on that position.
his alternative approach is NOT to authorize the anti-employee TPP!
Obama will not authorize the disclosure of the proposed language
if it is so beneficial to the man on the street, why can't we review that language

Bernie voted AGAINST the war in iraq. a huge difference

hillary supported keystone as secstate. Bernie opposes it

Bernie is adamantly opposed the the current campaign financing laws yet look how his campaign is funded versus hillary's:
One Chart Shows the Biggest Difference Between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton - Mic

and here are the five massive differences between Bernie and hillary:

- Money: Sanders attacks the rich; Clinton wants to raise money from them

- Trade: Sanders is extremely skeptical of new agreements, while Clinton has waffled

- Foreign policy: Clinton is more of a hawk than Sanders — and most other Democrats

- Health reform: Sanders wants single-payer

- Spending: Sanders wants big spending

The 5 biggest policy differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton - Vox


by no means are these SMALL differences

Sanders - again like Warren - wants college educations and jobs training to be more affordable/accessible to our kids. where is hillary on this. probably shaking her head, saying "me too", but never coming out ad leading the charge on such major - such vital, national issues


Of course, the campaign is in its early stages, but successful differentiation will be key to his prospects in the Democratic Party's nominating process.
as i pointed out above, the differences between them are massive
and then there is the trust issue. of the two, who do you think is speaking frank to us
 
If this guy's a Socialist, I want to hear more Socialism!

(never thought I'd say that)
 
If this guy's a Socialist, I want to hear more Socialism!

(never thought I'd say that)

Ah... yeah... okay... guy with "Chomsky" for a name. :p
 
part 1 of 2 parts


no don, on this, you are the one found reaching
like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie has come out strong in his vocal opposition to TPP. he sees it as yet another instance where free trade is NOT found to be fair trade, such that big business realizes a bonanza and the working guy gets more international competition, holding wage rates down
his alternative is the status quo; NOT allowing our lucrative domestic market to be further exploited by foreign based companies that do not have to deal with the labor, OSHA, EPA, and collective bargaining aspects of business that our nation's business community does
NAFTA happened on bill's watch. who here truly believes hillary will act in a way different than her husband on this matter

To what specific terms is Senator Sanders objecting?

The reality is that the possible trade agreement is being negotiated. There are no terms. He's firing away before there's any agreement (as was Senator Warren--in Warren's case, she was speculating on a specific impact vis-à-vis the Dodd-Frank Act, even as the terms of a possible TPP agreement are being negotiated and are not available beyond the negotiators; not surprisingly, President Obama rebutted her speculation.). As there's no agreement and no terms available, he's more than likely attacking the principle of trade liberalization itself.

I don't doubt that there will be some sectors in which the U.S. "loses" from a TPP, but there will be others in which it "wins." That's the nature of comparative advantages, but as long as all the parties are better off in the long-run than would be the case in the absence of a trade agreement, then the trade agreement would be a good thing. Moreover, there's nothing that would preclude the U.S. from offering transitional assistance e.g., funding for training/education, etc., to workers in adversely affected sectors.

But right now, there is no TPP agreement, so my comments concern trade liberalization in general. We'll see what the terms of such an agreement are if or when it is reached. In the meantime, Sanders is already opposing an agreement that does not yet exist. Given his record in the Senate, his opposition likely concerns trade liberalization in general, not specific trade agreements. He opposed NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, etc. I'm not aware of a single major trade agreement that he supported during his political tenure.
 
To what specific terms is Senator Sanders objecting?

The reality is that the possible trade agreement is being negotiated. There are no terms. He's firing away before there's any agreement (as was Senator Warren--in Warren's case, she was speculating on a specific impact vis-à-vis the Dodd-Frank Act, even as the terms of a possible TPP agreement are being negotiated and are not available beyond the negotiators; not surprisingly, President Obama rebutted her speculation.). As there's no agreement and no terms available, he's more than likely attacking the principle of trade liberalization itself.

I don't doubt that there will be some sectors in which the U.S. "loses" from a TPP, but there will be others in which it "wins." That's the nature of comparative advantages, but as long as all the parties are better off in the long-run than would be the case in the absence of a trade agreement, then the trade agreement would be a good thing. Moreover, there's nothing that would preclude the U.S. from offering transitional assistance e.g., funding for training/education, etc., to workers in adversely affected sectors.

But right now, there is no TPP agreement, so my comments concern trade liberalization in general. We'll see what the terms of such an agreement are if or when it is reached. In the meantime, Sanders is already opposing an agreement that does not yet exist. Given his record in the Senate, his opposition likely concerns trade liberalization in general, not specific trade agreements. He opposed NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, etc. I'm not aware of a single major trade agreement that he supported during his political tenure.

you object to Bernie's failure to point out the flawed language of the proposed TPP
but i suspect you are aware that it would be illegal for Sanders to reveal any specific language because the terms have been cloaked
that is why Elizabeth Warren has chided the president on this matter - urging him to allow the proposed language to be revealed for the public to see for itself what would be entailed
we have not heard hillary make such a proposal, and i assume she is fine with keeping this matter secret from the public until after the treaty has been accepted
so, yes, this is one of the many instances where hillary's position can be clearly discerned as being vastly different from Bernie's
 
you object to Bernie's failure to point out the flawed language of the proposed TPP
but i suspect you are aware that it would be illegal for Sanders to reveal any specific language because the terms have been cloaked
that is why Elizabeth Warren has chided the president on this matter - urging him to allow the proposed language to be revealed for the public to see for itself what would be entailed
we have not heard hillary make such a proposal, and i assume she is fine with keeping this matter secret from the public until after the treaty has been accepted
so, yes, this is one of the many instances where hillary's position can be clearly discerned as being vastly different from Bernie's

Totally agree, and people need to understand that Hillary is no progressive liberal.
 
you object to Bernie's failure to point out the flawed language of the proposed TPP
but i suspect you are aware that it would be illegal for Sanders to reveal any specific language because the terms have been cloaked
that is why Elizabeth Warren has chided the president on this matter - urging him to allow the proposed language to be revealed for the public to see for itself what would be entailed
we have not heard hillary make such a proposal, and i assume she is fine with keeping this matter secret from the public until after the treaty has been accepted
so, yes, this is one of the many instances where hillary's position can be clearly discerned as being vastly different from Bernie's

There is no final language right now, because there is no agreement at present. When there is final language, which will come before the Congress, then there will be an appropriate opportunity to critique the agreement. No agreement exists right now and it is not assured that the negotiations will actually reach agreement.

The issue at present is whether Congress should adopt fast track authority, which allows for debate on a possible agreement, but curbs amendments to the agreement. That's an entirely different matter than the TPP itself, as the TPP itself is not under consideration by Congress at present.

Sanders, however stated that he opposes the TPP. Therefore, I would expect him to explain what exactly he opposes. He hasn't done so. Given his past votes against all the major trade agreements that came before the House and Senate during his tenure, it appears that his objection may well stem from opposition to trade liberalization in general. If so, that perspective will differentiate him from Clinton, but probably won't allow him to materially broaden his base of support. Were he objecting to a clearly flawed agreement, that might be a different matter.
 
There is no final language right now, because there is no agreement at present. When there is final language, which will come before the Congress, then there will be an appropriate opportunity to critique the agreement. No agreement exists right now and it is not assured that the negotiations will actually reach agreement.

The issue at present is whether Congress should adopt fast track authority, which allows for debate on a possible agreement, but curbs amendments to the agreement. That's an entirely different matter than the TPP itself, as the TPP itself is not under consideration by Congress at present.

Sanders, however stated that he opposes the TPP. Therefore, I would expect him to explain what exactly he opposes. He hasn't done so. Given his past votes against all the major trade agreements that came before the House and Senate during his tenure, it appears that his objection may well stem from opposition to trade liberalization in general. If so, that perspective will differentiate him from Clinton, but probably won't allow him to materially broaden his base of support. Were he objecting to a clearly flawed agreement, that might be a different matter.
[above emphasis added by bubba]

here you go, don; read this
and please pay special attention to item 8, which has been forcefully addressed by Liz Warren as undermining the mechanisms now in place to prevent the financial corporations from again undermining the world's economy:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file
 
There is no final language right now, because there is no agreement at present. When there is final language, which will come before the Congress, then there will be an appropriate opportunity to critique the agreement. No agreement exists right now and it is not assured that the negotiations will actually reach agreement.

The issue at present is whether Congress should adopt fast track authority, which allows for debate on a possible agreement, but curbs amendments to the agreement. That's an entirely different matter than the TPP itself, as the TPP itself is not under consideration by Congress at present.

Sanders, however stated that he opposes the TPP. Therefore, I would expect him to explain what exactly he opposes. He hasn't done so. Given his past votes against all the major trade agreements that came before the House and Senate during his tenure, it appears that his objection may well stem from opposition to trade liberalization in general. If so, that perspective will differentiate him from Clinton, but probably won't allow him to materially broaden his base of support. Were he objecting to a clearly flawed agreement, that might be a different matter.

28 advisory committees composed 85% of corporate executives and industry lobbyists is hugely problematic. People like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have access to and have read the draft and are privy to its elements as it develops but cannot disclose details to the public at this time. I smell rotten fish when a Republican Party that doesn't believe Obama when he tells them what time it is, suddenly has the confidence to give him fast tract authority on this, while democrats stand largely opposed. I say, not so fast!!
 
Back
Top Bottom