Home | About | Donate

Democrats Prioritize Party Unity Over Including Stand Against TPP In Platform


#1


#2

TPP promises to force targeted countries to force their subjects to ingest GMOs at a rate of no less than 150% of the daily caloric needs for to do otherwise would cut into corporate profits. The ISDS behind the curtain has spoken!


#3

This posturing of "unity" and "loyalty" to the President when the trade deal is so patently BAD for most U.S. citizens reminds me of this:


#4

When Clinton pushed NAFTA using the same devious lies and polished deceptions, there was no precedent to prove it the evil that it was... for Labor, Environmental Rights, and ultimately, the sovereignty of the citizenry.

However, as Mr. Gosztola relates, there now IS an established track record and it's horrible. As many know, TIPP and TPP take all this corporate decision-making over very real aspects of citizens' lives to a whole new level. They represent prior trade treaties on toxic Steroids!

The following paragraphs bear repeating:

“It would be one thing if this was the very first trade agreement that we were debating, Trans-Pacific Partnership. We had one side take one position and another side take another position,” Warren Gunnels, policy adviser to the Sanders campaign, argued. “The problem is we’ve been down this road before. We were told in 1993, 1994, that NAFTA would create a million jobs over the first five years, and we all know—we’ve had over 20 years experience now—that NAFTA has led to the loss of over 850,000 jobs.”

“Then, in 1999, we were told that permanent trade relations with China would create jobs in the United states. It would be a 100-0 deal in favor of this country. What happened was the United States ended up losing 3.2 million jobs because of permanent normal trade relations with China. Now the experts tell us if the Trans-Pacific Partnership passes, the United States will lose another half millions jobs,” according to Gunnels. [*Note: Gunnels is a non-voting member of the platform committee.]


#5

"The attempt failed because members appointed by Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed it was improper to oppose the TPP when President Barack Obama fervently believes in the agreement. "

Balderdash! It failed because now that Bernie has been handled Hillary needn't pretend she a 'progressive' any more. TTIP and TISA are also sure locks to be signed. No surprises here, this is what Clintons do, have done, and will continue to do, that is lie, tell the people what they want to hear, and then carry on with business as usual. Bunker down for WW III, no reason to believe Madam Slick is unlikely to remain true to form with her hawkish nature, as well.


#7

I see it in just the opposite way, although I always enjoy hearing from Gosztola.

I see them putting DISunity over smart, compassionate, unifying language in the platform. Sure, unity with a lame duck Prez, but disunity with a very substantial number of Democrats who are for Sanders.

And people laughed after Cornell West's statement of abstention. The whole thing was a shameful sham. I'm sick of these people.


#8

love it.


#9

Unity with a lame duck president above principle? I think not. This is more about unity with the presumptive incoming president HRC who will disavow any "promises" she was forced to make during the primaries so as to appear more palatable to the democratic base. Even Drumpf opposes the TTP and TTIP, which is enough to get me to vote for him over HRC, but not enough to get me to vote for him over Bernie Sanders, who WILL get my vote in November, dot.


#10

I'm having difficulty in understanding the value of supporting a lame duck President over the future of the Western world-- perhaps the entire world.

When the whole of humanity is potentially on the line, might democrats prefer to look forward instead of backward?

There is so much more to this than supporting Obama's past decisions. These appointees were told how they were to vote before they walked in the room. Gawd help us all if their blind allegiance costs us the world as we know it.


#13

This is superficial change in an attempt to gain the loyalty of true progressives. It shows the degree of contempt those in power have for those on the left. Where Hilary Clinton can be bought off for 250000$$ speeches by the Coporations, the DNC establishment thinks the voter can be bought off with vague promises not intended to change anything.

If the DNC establishment feels that those wants and desires of those that got behind Sanders are not worth considering, then for the life of me I can not see how they are worth your vote.


#15

Apparently Hank Paulson recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and one of the reasons he gave was that he expected Hillary to push through the TPP. George Will is another Hillary fan, probably for similar reasons.


#16

Exactly. i have not read the article yet, but logged in to note the headline is wrong.

It's not "party unity," that's a BS smokescreen:

"Democrats Prioritize Corporate Supremacy Over Including Stand Against TPP In Platform"

EDIT: i see Cornell West called it out:

"This is really about corporate power, and those of us who are very suspicious of corporate power and fundamentally committed to democratic accountability and transparency, not secretive operations and fast tracks and so forth... It says much about who we are as a nation, as a party, in terms of TPP. It’s not just some fetishized policy, but it’s a fundamental expression of who we are vis-a-vis people power and corporate power.”

OK, i see McKibben and Parker also called out corporate power.

Wonder why Gosztola wrote "party unity" in the headline instead of "corporate power"? Maybe he did not write the headline.


#17

With the legalization of medical/marijuana laws, I wondered how long it would take agribusiness to get in on it:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36565-the-war-on-weed-is-winding-down-but-will-monsanto-be-the-winner


#18

Read that today at Counterpunch. Will pass it on to lots of local activists. Looking forward (well you know) to Brown's follow-up article.


#19

The reason may be simply be that Bernie can't let go. He just held some rallies in New York State. He still has not suspended his campaign. I just think he can't face the fact that the election is over and he lost. What chance does he really have to affect the platform in any major way? It is probably mostly wishful thinking. He has at least finally said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton but had still hasn't endorsed her. He has to be thinking a lot about who Trump would appoint to the Supreme Court if he is elected and what would be the consequences if Trump fouled up all attempts to address climate change. He is dealing with a difficult internal conflict of wanting to keep his campaign going on one hand and working to stop Trump on the other. I think that is why we are seeing this very confusing situation going on after Hillary Clinton won by about 400 unpledged delegates and about 4 million votes.


#21

Or, more likely, he is keeping the campaign officially alive while waiting for the results of the FBI primary. Jim Comey can still turn this primary on its ear.

Bernie also has to realize that he will not convince most Bernie-Or-Bust people to vote for Hillary. She represents the epitome of everything he was fighting against.

I don't think most die hard Bernie supporters see the lesser of two evils argument as very compelling in this election - it's 6 pieces of slime for one vs half a dozen for the other.

If progressives lost the primary (as you constantly try to point out), then we should start working for 2020, and the best way to promote progressive candidates in 2020 is the make sure that Hillary loses in 2016.

A Clinton win is a win for big money and means the earliest we can try to re-engage this fight in 2024 (taking on a sitting president in the same party is not realistic). But, if she loses, we can fight in 2020 - the DLC-led legions of senior citizens will be shrinking and the youth segment that Bernie dominated will be growing.


#22

Sorry to say, but it looks like the only voices opposing neo-liberal globalization left standing are radical left and a xenophobic populist right - Trump and Stein in this country. Shillary and the DNC ARE THE PROBLEM! They ran scared of Reagan (and doubled down on their cozy relationship with Wall Street, Langley, and the Pentagon), a fear that generated the DLC and Clitton #1, and it kept going through war, bail-outs, fracking wells, and mass incarceration. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF to quote the last (reluctantly) domestic progressive Demo honcho (McGovern never got the support of the party hacks). A call to anti-fascism, a militarized class war (to be subverted after the war). Have no fear of Trump, we have our songs of freedom.


#23

this is living proof that the DNC sucks. The people here will probably agree


#24

"Loyalty" to any political party or any politician is always misplaced. At most, they deserve support when they serve their constituents — and withdrawal of that support when they don't. Otherwise, you're like an abused woman who keeps going back to her abuser.

NO UNITY as long as Hillary Clinton is the candidate.


#25

Bernie Sanders is doing what he told his followers he would do: stay in the race until the convention. You appear not to understand a politician who keeps his word to his followers, but we do. And anyone who thinks Bernie has his ego tied up in this has the insight of a gnat.

P.S. As long as the Democrats retake the Senate, they can block any of Trump's Supreme Court appointments, just as the Republican Senate is currently blocking Obama's appointments, so you can let go of that bogie trying to scare us into voting for Clinton.