-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
02 Oct 2015, 9:52 am
Ricky:
People can go into politics with a desire to serve. With a desire to affect positive change.
I think you are right that they go in that way, but they often go out so cynical that all they care about is parlaying their "public service" into something more lucrative.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Oct 2015, 10:00 am
Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:
People can go into politics with a desire to serve. With a desire to affect positive change.
I think you are right that they go in that way, but they often go out so cynical that all they care about is parlaying their "public service" into something more lucrative.
Like someone who goes from a middle class lifestyle to being worth a few hundred million while "serving?"
Oh, and she recently proposed a "bank" that would work like CGI if she gets elected? I can't see any way that would ever lead to corruption . . .
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:17 am
It's very disappointing that she came out against the TPTD ... it's such an obvious pander to the left wing of the party. If Bill were in that situation I can imagine him providing the public with a detailed yet understandable reasoning as to why he supports the agreement. But Ms. Clinton has jeopardized this favorable agreement (which she supported while in the administration) for her own political career. Why should she care about the positive economic and geopolitical implications?
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:31 am
Ray Jay wrote:which she supported while in the administration
She may very well be pandering, but didn't she have to support it when in the administration? It was obama's policy, and she worked for obama.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:37 am
Ray Jay wrote:It's very disappointing that she came out against the TPTD ... it's such an obvious pander to the left wing of the party. If Bill were in that situation I can imagine him providing the public with a detailed yet understandable reasoning as to why he supports the agreement. But Ms. Clinton has jeopardized this favorable agreement (which she supported while in the administration) for her own political career. Why should she care about the positive economic and geopolitical implications?
This is what Bernie is doing to her.
I understand Brock and the gang are ready to attack Biden. If she gets linked to that, it will drive her unfavorables even higher.
If she gets defeated in Iowa and NH, I expect panic in the Democratic Party.
Al Gore for President!
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:40 am
geojanes wrote:Ray Jay wrote:which she supported while in the administration
She may very well be pandering, but didn't she have to support it when in the administration? It was obama's policy, and she worked for obama.
That was very late in her tenure. She had her eye on the exit. She could have demurred. She could have used 3rd person language: "President Obama is very much in favor of this and let me tell you why . . ."
It's pretty tough to convince people it's not a bit of pandering flip-flopping politics.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:50 am
rayjay
It's very disappointing that she came out against the TPTD ... it's such an obvious pander to the left wing of the party
Do you have any idea about the terms of the TPTD and its actual likely effects? Its been negotiated in almost compete secrecy and its terms have not been published.
I'm all free trade, but also fair trade. Ad I have deep suspicions that much of the TPTD will pander to Big Pharma, Big Agra and other international corporations with little positive benefit to working class or middle class citizens of Canada or the US...
She's right to be suspicious.
I very much doubt that the TPDB will get the proper scrutiny it deserves. For something that will have such a potentially major effect, I'll bet it sails through hearings in Congress very quickly,
If it got the scrutiny that Benghazi or Planned Parenthood got things might be different. But then where's the political gain for a generally pliant Congress on issues of trade?
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
08 Oct 2015, 6:53 am
Doctor Fate wrote:geojanes wrote:Ray Jay wrote:which she supported while in the administration
She may very well be pandering, but didn't she have to support it when in the administration? It was obama's policy, and she worked for obama.
That was very late in her tenure. She had her eye on the exit. She could have demurred. She could have used 3rd person language: "President Obama is very much in favor of this and let me tell you why . . ."
It's pretty tough to convince people it's not a bit of pandering flip-flopping politics.
Yes, for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/ ... w-opposes/45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Oct 2015, 7:02 am
rickyp wrote:rayjay
It's very disappointing that she came out against the TPTD ... it's such an obvious pander to the left wing of the party
Do you have any idea about the terms of the TPTD and its actual likely effects? Its been negotiated in almost compete secrecy and its terms have not been published.
I'm all free trade, but also fair trade. Ad I have deep suspicions that much of the TPTD will pander to Big Pharma, Big Agra and other international corporations with little positive benefit to working class or middle class citizens of Canada or the US...
She's right to be suspicious.
I very much doubt that the TPDB will get the proper scrutiny it deserves. For something that will have such a potentially major effect, I'll bet it sails through hearings in Congress very quickly,
If it got the scrutiny that Benghazi or Planned Parenthood got things might be different. But then where's the political gain for a generally pliant Congress on issues of trade?
Um, wait a sec. You're trying to blame Congress???
Okay, please name the Congressional people who negotiated the deal.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Oct 2015, 7:20 am
geojanes wrote:Ray Jay wrote:which she supported while in the administration
She may very well be pandering, but didn't she have to support it when in the administration? It was obama's policy, and she worked for obama.
I just saw this: MARK HALPERIN: What would you say are the three biggest accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton when she was at State?
SUSAN RICE: Well, first of all, I think you would have to put them in context of the administration's accomplishments.
HALPERIN: Anything that she participated in a meaningful way.
RICE: She participated in everything that we did in the first term in a meaningful way.
First of all, in the first term, we were able to bring to conclusion two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she was very much involved in supporting those transitions. In the presidents first term also we initiated and now have sustained what we call, the re-balance to Asia, the Asia-Pacific.
Where we have substantially increased our security commitment, our economic engagement.
As you know we have been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to bring that to fruition.
Right, so her big accomplishments are getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are both in turmoil, and the TPP, which she now opposes.
Heckuva job, Hills!
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
08 Oct 2015, 7:21 am
Ricky:
I very much doubt that the TPDB will get the proper scrutiny it deserves.
Will there be enough scrutiny to get the right acronym? ;)
Hillary is pandering to the Ricky wing of the Democratic Party.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
08 Oct 2015, 9:29 am
fate
Um, wait a sec. You're trying to blame Congress???
Its an easy target...
if you or Ray think you know what is in the deal, let us know. I don't think
anyone knows who wasn't involved in writing the deal. And perhaps a lot has changed since Hillary was involved. Don't know.
And I'm not blaming Congress yet.
But they do have an over sight duty. Do you think that this over sight will be of the same magnitude of Benghazi or Planned Parenthood?
I doubt that the trade deal will get more than a cursory glance.
And yet, it will have a greater impact on ordinary peoples lives than either issue by a magnitude of 1000 or more..
Rayjay
Hillary is pandering to the Ricky wing of the Democratic Party.
There's an entire wing named after me now? Wow.
I do think you're right that she's pandering..
But I also think that the deal deserves scrutiny and if her pandering gets people to scrutinize the deal, its worth it.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
08 Oct 2015, 11:01 am
There are a lot of problems with the TPP... But as long as big Pharma is taken care of isn't that what really matters?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/07/ ... -big-deal/Sorry, Ricky, you will be paying more for any drug prescriptions that you need..
A history of how it's gone with prior US trade desks.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/FTA-V- ... tsheet.pdfHow about that NAFTA deal?
http://ourfuture.org/20131217/nafta-20- ... tion-modelOur trade deficit is 500 billion and growing in manufacturing--want to bet that under TPP it gets worse? Look at how our trade deficit with South Korea has gone through the roof in three years.
http://www.epi.org/publication/increase ... otections/But as long as some of our big businesses can make more money by selling overseas and big pharmaceutical companies will get to sell drugs at astronomical prices, isn't that all that matters?Who cares if the deal is probably bad for 90-95% percent of Americans--it's good for the few that really matter. Who said feudalism was dead.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
08 Oct 2015, 11:27 am
rickyp wrote:fate
Um, wait a sec. You're trying to blame Congress???
Its an easy target...
if you or Ray think you know what is in the deal, let us know. I don't think
anyone knows who wasn't involved in writing the deal. And perhaps a lot has changed since Hillary was involved. Don't know.
And I'm not blaming Congress yet.
But they do have an over sight duty.
That's funny. First of all, no one in Congress negotiated the deal. In fact, it is entirely fair to suggest Hillary had more to do with this than anyone in Congress.
Secondly, Congress has had very limited access to the bill. In fact, the way this is being done should get it voted down on principle.
Do you think that this over sight will be of the same magnitude of Benghazi or Planned Parenthood?
I doubt that the trade deal will get more than a cursory glance.
And yet, it will have a greater impact on ordinary peoples lives than either issue by a magnitude of 1000 or more..
And, the President could veto the thing, ending the threat to ordinary people.
Why isn't he?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
08 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
fate
Secondly, Congress has had very limited access to the bill. In fact, the way this is being done should get it voted down on principle.
and is that what you think will happen?
