4 ms·

I don't actually believe Hillary Clinton is against the TPP. I believe she's only saying she is against it because she's running for election. She doesn't want

by danjoc 10y ago

I don't actually believe Hillary Clinton is against the TPP. I believe she's only saying she is against it because she's running for election. She doesn't want to lose to Sanders or lose his supporters. Only now that the deal is finalized, it's very clear that the TPP is not popular among Sanders voters, and she is in a presidential run off, does she oppose it. She previously described the TPP negotiations as "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality," "high-standard" and "gold standard." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/...

dmix 10y ago
Yes I find her total lack of ability to hide her incencerity refreshing. I prefer to know what the likely outcome will be once she's in power. The dangerous thing about politicians like Obama was his excellent persuasive ability, such as his ability to generate reassurance that things will change and it was a very believable. For ex, I was convinced he truly believed in reducing the militarism of America. But he then managed to push it well beyond Bush, which was beautifully implemented by heavily leaning on the CIA/NSA who operate well within the constraints of secrecy and deception required to maintain that public perception. In his first year in office it was revealed the CIA destroyed 92 video tapes very likely to contain evidence of torture. A perfect opportunity to confront one of the most serious abuses of power in United States history and he did nothing in response, not even a token stepping down of the director, and there was hardly an ounce of public backlash against him. He won the Noble Peace prize that same year. Amazing.
snowwrestler 10y ago
I don't believe any of the candidates will maintain their position against the TPP once in office. I think whoever wins will get a detailed briefing from the US trade representative on how the negotiations went, and briefings from State and CIA on China's likely plans in the region. And then they will "reluctantly" support the deal as-is, or demand (and get) a few token changes so that they can say "it's better now, so now I support it." There is a broader context to the TPP than getting the best possible deal for American consumers, manufacturers, or unions: cementing American leadership of the Pacific Rim for the next generation. Any president will be willing to pay a price to do that, which means they'll be willing to sign the TPP even if they don't think it's great.

by danjoc 10y ago

dmix 10y ago

Yes I find her total lack of ability to hide her incencerity refreshing. I prefer to know what the likely outcome will be once she's in power. The dangerous thing about politicians like Obama was his excellent persuasive ability, such as his ability to generate reassurance that things will change and it was a very believable. For ex, I was convinced he truly believed in reducing the militarism of America. But he then managed to push it well beyond Bush, which was beautifully implemented by heavily leaning on the CIA/NSA who operate well within the constraints of secrecy and deception required to maintain that public perception. In his first year in office it was revealed the CIA destroyed 92 video tapes very likely to contain evidence of torture. A perfect opportunity to confront one of the most serious abuses of power in United States history and he did nothing in response, not even a token stepping down of the director, and there was hardly an ounce of public backlash against him. He won the Noble Peace prize that same year. Amazing.

snowwrestler 10y ago

I don't believe any of the candidates will maintain their position against the TPP once in office. I think whoever wins will get a detailed briefing from the US trade representative on how the negotiations went, and briefings from State and CIA on China's likely plans in the region. And then they will "reluctantly" support the deal as-is, or demand (and get) a few token changes so that they can say "it's better now, so now I support it." There is a broader context to the TPP than getting the best possible deal for American consumers, manufacturers, or unions: cementing American leadership of the Pacific Rim for the next generation. Any president will be willing to pay a price to do that, which means they'll be willing to sign the TPP even if they don't think it's great.