Home | About | Donate

'Strongest Words Yet,' But Clinton Still Refuses to Push Obama on TPP


'Strongest Words Yet,' But Clinton Still Refuses to Push Obama on TPP

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Thursday offered her "strongest words yet against the TPP," according to one progressive organization—but whether it will be enough to convince skeptics remains to be seen.


She once again spoke like the lawyer she is and gave herself huge outs just by the way she worded it. Reading this article made me pissed at Adam Green because I know he is too smart to fall for the rhetorical tricks Clinton and all corporate lawyers use. Who really cares what comes out of her mouth anyway, really, when most of it is blatant lies, half truths, or similar obfuscations?


The TPP will pass before Obama leaves office. That will give Hillary a pass and a grand excuse.


How about a touch of integrity here? In 2015, before launching her campaign, Clinton was working on selling the TPP to Congress. This wasn't done secretly, was routinely mentioned in the news. We weren't surprised, since here husband had stuck us with NAFTA. (Google "Hillary Clinton and the TPP," refer to established, reputable news sources.)

No question, the Clinton wing have worked to push this off on Obama, who had previously claimed to be "uncommitted." Either way, these trade bills are decided by Congress. (A president can veto a bill, at which point it would go back to Congress, and Congress decides if they should alter or scrap the bill.)


Ya, right. For the easily confused maybe. How would she look going around the world saying she's against it when she went around leaning on other countries to support it? Not gonna happen!


It's anything but certain that Clinton could win. Much of the Republican voting base deeply opposes Trump, and much of the Dem voting base just as deeply opposes Clinton. A good chunk of the country finally agrees on something: Between these two, there is no "lesser of the evils."


Refuses to push Obama on TPP and to tell America what she told the bankers to get all that money for speaking.


What about the language in TPP which gives corporations the right to sue countries for climate change legislation that causes them financial "harm"? Isn't this as treacherous as the loss of jobs? Isn't Hillary just saying today that she will rewrite a few paragraphs of TPP and then be for it again?


She never intended to and isn't going to, so don't hold your breath.


The TPP will not come up for a vote during the lame duck session. Paul Ryan will not put it on the agenda.. Ryan said he would not bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pactto the House floor while President Obama is still in office.“No, no,” Ryan said. “We don’t even have the votes for it…. I don’t see any way in which that could be done because you’d have to change the TPP in some substantial ways, and I just don’t see that happening." There is no reason for Hillary Clinton to oppose bringing it up in the lame duck session because it will not happen. This appears to be an attempt to hammer Clinton over nothing just to score political points. What matters is what happens to the TPP after she takes office if she wins. In all probability it will be taken up by Congress to make changes. Almost certainly Obama is going to lose on this one.


"Much of the Dem voting base opposes Clinton."

The only Democrats who oppose Clinton are the lunatic left who deign to call themsleves Democrats. Fully 90% of Bernie's followers will vote for Clinton. Stein polls in the low single digits and has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election.

The problem for The Donald is that thinking Republicans have decided not to vote for him. That leaves Republicans who stupidly think even The Donald is better than Hillary (there were a lot of Germans who wanted Hitler in power because he was not a communist) and all those people who refuse to think critically about The Donald. H. L. Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." In Germany, democracy did not produce Adolph Hitler because a majority of Germans were not so stupid as to elect a lunatic anti-Semite who wanted to make Germany great again by establishing the Third Reich. Hitler lost the election for president in 1932.

Are Americans dumber than Germans? Will a majority of Americans vote for a lunatic xenophobe who wants to deport Mexicans and Muslims (Hitler wanted to deport Jews before he came up with the final solution) and who wants to make America great again? I sure hope not.


Nah, she fully expects Obama, Wall Street Dems and his Republican pals to do this dirty deed. Hill does not want to have this chit called up for payment by her neoliberal henchmen. She knows that this issue could limit her to one term if it was left over from Obama sellout.


You remind me of a small child who stamps her feet and says: "I will never eat carrots, Period, NEVER."

People who use their vote to protest a candidate are fools. If you want to protest, then follow the First Amendment and peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Your choice is Hillary or The Donald. One of those two will become president of the US.

Do you want a president who denies the science behind anthropogenic global warming (The Donald) or a president who understands that anthropogenic global warming is the greatest existential threat humans face today (Hillary)?

Do you want a president who parrots the lunacy of the NRA that the Second Amendment confers an absolute right for every nutcase who wants a gun to have one (The Donald) or do you want a president who understands that we need to regulate guns because this will make society safer (Hillary).

Do you want Hillary or The Donald appointing people to the Supreme Court?

You see, voting is not about keeping people out of office because you hate them. It is about putting somebody in office who will do some of the things you want done. It is naive to think you can find a candidate who agrees totally with your thinking. It is foolish to look for ideological purity. Politics is the art of the possible, so you have to be pragmatic.

I was supporting Bernie because he is a Social Democrat who wants to use government social welfare programs (e.g., single-payer health insurance) to establish social justice in society. I did not support Hillary because she is a traditional Democrat, not a Social Democrat. Hillary opposes single-payer health insurance because she thinks it is not possible to pass it in a Congress where a majority thinks single-payer health insurance is socialized medicine (they are wrong). But now that Hillary is the nominee, I will support her because even a traditional Democrat is better than a Republican because Republicans have opposed every single piece of social welfare legislation passed by Democrats since the Great Depression.


Obama pushed for fast track authority, specifically FOR the prospect of limiting debate in Congress for the ramming of this trade deal down the throats of the populace. Is the middle class demanding this trade deal?

Obama "uncommitted" on TPP? You are kidding us all here, right?


My gut tells me Obama has always been for this and does not mind at all doing this before he leaves office. Gives Clinton a nice out too.


Why are you committing now? Why not wait to see how the polls are going in your state and maybe you can still vote for the social democrat (Stein)?


Sarcasm? Unintentional comedy? Satire?


You like to talk loudly about nothing. You insult people to bolster your misguided opinions. You must feel big.


America the Beautiful.....Beautiful on the outside, but rotten at its core. The core being the US government with all types of lobbyist crawling in and out.