Home | About | Donate

Groups Demand Clinton Publicly Oppose Lame-Duck TPP Vote—Now


Groups Demand Clinton Publicly Oppose Lame-Duck TPP Vote—Now

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Heavy-hitting progressive groups have sent a letter to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, urging her to make "a clear, public, and unequivocal statement opposing any vote on the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the post-election, 'lame-duck' session of Congress."

"Allowing a lame-duck vote would be a tacit admission that corporate interests matter more than the will of the people, relying on members of Congress who will be less accountable to voters."


Hillary is too busy running all over the country raising trillions of campaign dollars at invitation only gatherings and defending herself against the influence peddling charges she accrued as Sect. of State to take time out to condemn the TPP.


So progressives finally figured out that they have to make demands before the election, not after.


Here's a question i've not seen answered:

How is the TPP not an international treaty under the US Constitution?

Why is it going to both the House and the Senate like a regular law, instead of just to the Senate for "advise and consent" like a treaty?


Curious as to how many folk think this will happen. Her is in favor of TPP. Will tweet two or three sentences and announce it meets her high standards and demand that it pass. Her has no ethics on this one.


"Politicians lie," that's what Jason Chaffetz, the good Mormon from Utah, told us several days ago.


Here's the only page i found in a quick search that goes straight to the question: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/fast-track-violates-the-u-s-constitution.html

Looks like i'm right, and the US is flouting the Constitution in order to avert the 2/3 Senate majority required for treaties. They simply stopped calling these "trade agreements" treaties, starting in 1979.


As long as Progressives keep that in mind after she is sworn in January, her administration will collapse like a house of cards post haste.


Let's assume for a moment that she does as requested. Given her past actions on this issue and others, what prevents her from the old "upon further reflection, I've changed my stance (again)..."?


No it won't. She will still be in power until she is not re-elected or (remote chance) impeached / convicted.


The last two loom as real possibilities.
If Progressives can get their s*** together and push for her crimes to be punished.


Petitions to Hillary are a waste of time. What she says today is irrelevant to what she will do tomorrow.


So I guess we should all dive into bed, pull the covers up over our heads and wait for the end to come?


The Congressional Research Service has a report in pdf format. It's title is "Why Certain Trade Agreements Are Approved as Congressional-Executive Agreements Rather Than Treaties": http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-896.pdf. (I think you'll need to google the title because the link to the pdf probably won't work.


Free trade is a driver of a global gilded age ... this is nothing less than a battle between democracy and plutocracy ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38


Groups demand sky switch from blue, and whales relocate to Colorado. Wasn't anyone paying attention to who paid for, ran, and populated the Democratic Convention? Sure they're going to work for the People's interests. That's why they lined up all the corporations, so they could fight them.


After Clinton had a chance to actually read the document she came out against it. She must have some sort of understanding with Obama that everything that she says about the TPP will apply to after she wins the election if she does. If she opposes a vote on the TPP during the lame duck session that might make it more difficult for Obama to campaign for her given how important this issue apparently is to him. I don't believe Trump has said anything about opposing a vote during the lame duck session. If he did that might change what Clinton does.


So why doesn't useless Sanders threaten to unendorse Clinton if she refuses to pull her support for the TTP because she doesn't want to "embarrass the president?" Hell, Cruz and the Bushes, who refuse to endorse Trump, have more integrity than Sanders.


Where did that come from? All I did was post an objective truth. No part of me is interested in 'pulling the covers over my head'. You come across as contentious for the sake of being contentious.


Why do you think that it ISN'T going just to the Senate?