• 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!

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill defeated for now in House

EXCEPT I POSTED HER WORDS SHOWING THAT SHE IS CLEARLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. Do you believe that she was praising the deal when it first got underway because she was against it or neutral on the matter? If you want her to comment on the existing specifics of the deal, that's silly as she stopped being head of the DOS nearly 2 years ago and would have no role/knowledge of separate sections. However, her support for the deal is unquestionable unless you have SOMETHING else to contradict it. If this is too much for you, I understand.


  1. Bernie Sanders accuses Hillary Clinton of 'cop-out' on tradePolitico‎ - 9 hours ago

    Asked whether he thought her silence is a “cop-out,” Sanders replied, that, “Yes. It is.”.
  2. First Draft | Bernie Sanders Demands Hillary Clinton Take Trade Stance 'Right Now'New York Times‎ - 1 day ago




  3. Clinton's cowardice on trade - The Washington Post

    Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...hillary...silence-on-trade...The Washington Post


    May 13, 2015 - But another key element is solidifying and advancing a free-trade regime that ... Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. ... on in the Senate, Clinton has been silent, or worse, has quietly indicated her concerns about the agreement.
 
My major concern is that companies can sue Govts for lost profits- goes to an independent arbitration board.We had the case up here when Canada banned MMT, a gasoline additive. Govt paid up, removed the ban. Australia is having the same problems with their trade deals.
So environmental, is up for grabs, rules for banks, open season on lessening regs as many want, basically eviscerating good sense regs and laws. that do not hinder trade in any way what so ever.
This is just not is regard to TPP but the trade deal with the EU as well.

let them sue. maybe displaced workers should sue, too.
 
Lol. So there's nothing in between the caveman and acceptance of a trade deal negotiated by corporate execs and industry lobbyists? ;)

Did i say that? Nope. But you have nothing noteworthy to say. So you do a diddle.
 
I'm not opposed to all liberalization. I am however disappointed with the way in which Obama has gone about this. I may support his views on many issues, but this is one he clearly screwed up on simply so he could say he got a bipartisan victory.

That Obama is a problem is true.
 
  1. Bernie Sanders accuses Hillary Clinton of 'cop-out' on tradePolitico‎ - 9 hours ago

    Asked whether he thought her silence is a “cop-out,” Sanders replied, that, “Yes. It is.”.
  2. First Draft | Bernie Sanders Demands Hillary Clinton Take Trade Stance 'Right Now'New York Times‎ - 1 day ago




  3. Clinton's cowardice on trade - The Washington Post

    Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis...hillary...silence-on-trade...The Washington Post


    May 13, 2015 - But another key element is solidifying and advancing a free-trade regime that ... Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. ... on in the Senate, Clinton has been silent, or worse, has quietly indicated her concerns about the agreement.

That's all great and dandy, however I've already posted the evidence that Hillary has supported this deal for a while. Crying that she's not saying whatever it is Bernie Sanders wants her to say doesn't change that.
 
Did i say that? Nope. But you have nothing noteworthy to say. So you do a diddle.

What? You asserted that not accepting TPP was to be a caveman!!
 
Free trade enriches all participants. This particular bill also is an important piece of our national security strategy in Asia.

Hmmm, interesting that many Republicans don't feel the same. I'm sure they've been bamboozled by them evil Democrats.
 
So... you want this bill to be passed?

Part of TPP's strategy is containment of China. Never mind that that's too late and it can't be done. But yes, there are people, none of which know what's in this trade deal that support it unconditionally. Strange.
 
That's all great and dandy, however I've already posted the evidence that Hillary has supported this deal for a while. Crying that she's not saying whatever it is Bernie Sanders wants her to say doesn't change that.

It changes it very much. From the WaPo link:

". . . Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. As secretary of state, Clinton said and did all the right things. She supported the TPP wholeheartedly, for reasons economic and strategic. This was not a matter of loyalty to Obama. Clinton was known to make clear her differences with the president on a number of issues, from the premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to the inadequate U.S. response to the humanitarian and strategic crisis in Syria. There was never an inkling that she dissented from support of the TPP.

Yet now, when the trade agreement hangs in the balance, when the all-important question of “trade promotion authority“ was voted on in the Senate, Clinton has been silent, or worse, has quietly indicated her concerns about the agreement. Whether or not this is posturing to avoid offending her party’s left wing, only Clinton can know for sure. But it is an interesting departure from her statements as the nation’s top diplomat. . . . "
 
Sure jobs will change and shift and there is pain. All change has brought that with it. So you would rather be a caveman?

Once again, when you folks have no where else to go but totally inane black/white extreme choices, you've already lost, and you know it.
 
Hmmm, interesting that many Republicans don't feel the same. I'm sure they've been bamboozled by them evil Democrats.

Core support for this bill has come from Repubs. If it passes it will be because the Repubs did the heavy lifting. Dems have deserted under fire.
 
It changes it very much. From the WaPo link:

Not at all. Unless Hillary has said something contrary, the only option is that she still supports it. Bernie Sanders being angry that she's not saying whatever it is he wants to hear is silly seeing as how her position on the matter can be found with a 0.002 second search on Google.
 
let them sue. maybe displaced workers should sue, too.

Problem is they go the arbitration route and generally win.
 
Core support for this bill has come from Repubs. If it passes it will be because the Repubs did the heavy lifting. Dems have deserted under fire.

It seems the majority of those who actually voted against it were Republicans.

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill on ice in House | Reuters

The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against.

I keep forgetting that you're not a Republican, my apologies! Anyways, with knowledge of this bipartisan rebuttal, do you believe Republicans have deserted under fire? :)
 
EXCEPT I POSTED HER WORDS SHOWING THAT SHE IS CLEARLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. Do you believe that she was praising the deal when it first got underway because she was against it or neutral on the matter? If you want her to comment on the existing specifics of the deal, that's silly as she stopped being head of the DOS nearly 2 years ago and would have no role/knowledge of separate sections. However, her support for the deal is unquestionable unless you have SOMETHING else to contradict it. If this is too much for you, I understand.

Just a question, and I don't know the answer, just putting what I do know together...

If it was at the beginning, could it be the concept of a trade bill she was in favor of, not knowing what this one might ultimately contain. And since we still, I guess, don't know what's in the bill, again could it be she's in favor of one but it might not be this one which should but probably doesn't contain either some recourse for our workers, which I think is the wrong approach because it costs USA taxpayers instead of the countries that will mostly benefit from offshoring jobs from US,... I think all trade agreements have to come with humane improvements in those countries, like reasonably high wages, ability to leave the workplace,.... basically things that would assure we aren't losing jobs so other people can be so poorly paid and treated that they literally have to jump of buildings to commit suicide to end their essential slavery.

Anyway, my point is, that she may be in favor of the concept, but may not and apparently cannot even know what's in this one. Hard to have an opinion, though she should have an opinion on the fast-track issue and her silence is glaringly loud.
 
Not at all. Unless Hillary has said something contrary, the only option is that she still supports it. Bernie Sanders being angry that she's not saying whatever it is he wants to hear is silly seeing as how her position on the matter can be found with a 0.002 second search on Google.

If you have that faith then good for you. Most people are not convinced, and their reasons for their conclusion strike me as better than yours. If she's not willing to speak up while the matter hangs in the balance then her "support" is insubstantial and merits no consideration.
 
If you have that faith then good for you.

There is no faith in verifiable statements. They simply exist as proof of a person's positions. She said them, unless she has said something, the only position is that she is still supportive of it. Whatever Bernie Sanders wants is irrelevant. I couldn't care less what "more people" want.
 
It seems the majority of those who actually voted against it were Republicans.

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill on ice in House | Reuters



I keep forgetting that you're not a Republican, my apologies! Anyways, with knowledge of this bipartisan rebuttal, do you believe Republicans have deserted under fire? :)

Most Repubs voted against the related, but separate, worker assistance bill. No surprise there; it was the Dems turning against it who killed it. Repubs passed the actual trade bill.

". . . The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against. . . ."
 
There is no faith in verifiable statements. They simply exist as proof of a person's positions. She said them, unless she has said something, the only position is that she is still supportive of it. Whatever Bernie Sanders wants is irrelevant. I couldn't care less what "more people" want.

She supported it then and she's silent now. When the heat is on she runs for cover. That's why the Washington Post, not Bernie Sanders, referred to her cowardice.
 
Most Repubs voted against the related, but separate, worker assistance bill. No surprise there; it was the Dems turning against it who killed it. Repubs passed the actual trade bill.

". . . The worker aid program, which expires in September, drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no." The overall vote was 302-126 against. . . ."

So what you're saying is that Democrats made it impossible to pass this bill even though Republicans had the votes necessary to pass it in its entirety and managed to pass a section of a related bill? Oh okay.
 
EXCEPT I POSTED HER WORDS SHOWING THAT SHE IS CLEARLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT. Do you believe that she was praising the deal when it first got underway because she was against it or neutral on the matter? If you want her to comment on the existing specifics of the deal, that's silly as she stopped being head of the DOS nearly 2 years ago and would have no role/knowledge of separate sections. However, her support for the deal is unquestionable unless you have SOMETHING else to contradict it. If this is too much for you, I understand.

You posted her words three years ago when she was a member of the Obama administration under orders to support the Obama administration. Post her words now as candidate Clinton trying to woo the union and minority vote and you may have an argument. Until then. . . .no.
 
So what you're saying is that Democrats made it impossible to pass this bill even though Republicans had the votes necessary to pass it in its entirety and managed to pass a section of a related bill? Oh okay.

Yes. The prospect was always that Repubs would do the heavy lift on trade and Dems would pass worker protection. Repubs did their part; Dems did not do theirs.
 
Yes. The prospect was always that Repubs would do the heavy lift on trade and Dems would pass worker protection. Repubs did their part; Dems did not do theirs.

Democrats didn't have the vote to pass it on their end. Why couldn't Republicans muster the necessary votes? :) Anyways, can you post evidence of this prospect? I mean something other than what some guy on the internet thought was going to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom