4 ms·

The new version leaves out some of the bad IP provisions, but leaves in the corporate sovereignty, so to that extent is still not good. Also, the TPP was basica

The new version leaves out some of the bad IP provisions, but leaves in the corporate sovereignty, so to that extent is still not good. Also, the TPP was basically dead in the water in the Senate before Trump took office. No one wanted it.

nerdponx 9y ago
Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Under Obama or Clinton it would have passed for sure.
- tfehring 9y ago
  Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 but gradually flip-flopped during the run-up to the campaign and actively opposed it during the campaign. It's absolutely possible that she would have flip-flopped again if elected, but I don't think you can really say that with certainty. 2012: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" [0] 2014: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement." [0] 2016: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." [1] [0] 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/... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-trade-policies-tpp https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinto...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 It's worth recalling that Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State into 2013, and anything she said from 2009 til then is likely to reflect the position of the Administration rather than her personal views.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      That isn't necessarily true. She is a thinking human being with the ability and in that job the profile and clout to form her own opinions. If she didn't agree with TPP she simply didn't consider it worth her job to push on the matter, which isn't much better than agreement with it. It's more likely, given her history as a pro-corporate, free-market conservative Democrat that she supported the TPP and her campaign rhetoric was a pile of lies.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Never the less, she is quoted as claiming "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field". She cannot denounce that. There is no way to say you support and believe in something with more vigor than that. It'd be her version of saying she liked something before she didn't like something in the most convenient way.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > She cannot denounce that. She can certainly denounce the outcome of a negotiation process that wasn't complete when she said that, or even when she left office as Secretary of State. The agreement drafted in 2015 and signed in 2016 may simply not reflect the thing she was talking about in 2012.
        mc32 9y ago
        You can believe that. I think she is a true Globalist and it wasn't till Sanders and Trump changed people's attention and perspectives that she got her new religion. I'm quite sure if there had been a female president Clinton, we'd have ratified the TPP as it stood at the end of 2016. Never say never, but I'm as Sure as one can without a crystal ball that we'd be in that mess of an agreement without Sanders and Trump.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Clinton was vocally pro TPP She flipped from pro to neutral between the time when she was involved in negotiations and the time the negotiations completed without her, and the whole way to solidly opposed later.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Actually Sen. Bob Menendez probably had more to do with it than Trump with the anti-slavery provision he put in and then tried to take out: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tpp-malaysia-slavery_n_7444978 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tpp-malaysia-slavery_n... The beginning of the end of that bill was when Obama started trying to take that clause out and opponents (quite fairly) denounced him for being soft on slavery. Had Hillary not then changed her tune on the TPP she too could have been depicted as a "pro-slavery" candidate running against an "anti-slavery" candidate which would have been slightly awkward.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  Obviously not, because if Obama could have gotten it passed, he would have done it before he left office. It was already sinking even before the summer conventions.
mabbo 9y ago
Frankly, America being out and removing their IP provisions is probably the biggest reason the agreement actually passed.
the-pigeon 9y ago
Why would we do anything to give multi-nationals more power? They need reigned in. If Bernie and Trump are both against the TPP then it's a safe bet it's bad for the people.

nerdponx 9y ago

Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Under Obama or Clinton it would have passed for sure.

tfehring 9y ago
Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 but gradually flip-flopped during the run-up to the campaign and actively opposed it during the campaign. It's absolutely possible that she would have flip-flopped again if elected, but I don't think you can really say that with certainty. 2012: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" [0] 2014: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement." [0] 2016: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." [1] [0] 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/... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-trade-policies-tpp https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinto...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 It's worth recalling that Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State into 2013, and anything she said from 2009 til then is likely to reflect the position of the Administration rather than her personal views.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    That isn't necessarily true. She is a thinking human being with the ability and in that job the profile and clout to form her own opinions. If she didn't agree with TPP she simply didn't consider it worth her job to push on the matter, which isn't much better than agreement with it. It's more likely, given her history as a pro-corporate, free-market conservative Democrat that she supported the TPP and her campaign rhetoric was a pile of lies.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Never the less, she is quoted as claiming "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field". She cannot denounce that. There is no way to say you support and believe in something with more vigor than that. It'd be her version of saying she liked something before she didn't like something in the most convenient way.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > She cannot denounce that. She can certainly denounce the outcome of a negotiation process that wasn't complete when she said that, or even when she left office as Secretary of State. The agreement drafted in 2015 and signed in 2016 may simply not reflect the thing she was talking about in 2012.
      - mc32 9y ago
        You can believe that. I think she is a true Globalist and it wasn't till Sanders and Trump changed people's attention and perspectives that she got her new religion. I'm quite sure if there had been a female president Clinton, we'd have ratified the TPP as it stood at the end of 2016. Never say never, but I'm as Sure as one can without a crystal ball that we'd be in that mess of an agreement without Sanders and Trump.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Clinton was vocally pro TPP She flipped from pro to neutral between the time when she was involved in negotiations and the time the negotiations completed without her, and the whole way to solidly opposed later.
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Actually Sen. Bob Menendez probably had more to do with it than Trump with the anti-slavery provision he put in and then tried to take out: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tpp-malaysia-slavery_n_7444978 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tpp-malaysia-slavery_n... The beginning of the end of that bill was when Obama started trying to take that clause out and opponents (quite fairly) denounced him for being soft on slavery. Had Hillary not then changed her tune on the TPP she too could have been depicted as a "pro-slavery" candidate running against an "anti-slavery" candidate which would have been slightly awkward.
Finnucane 9y ago
Obviously not, because if Obama could have gotten it passed, he would have done it before he left office. It was already sinking even before the summer conventions.

mabbo 9y ago

Frankly, America being out and removing their IP provisions is probably the biggest reason the agreement actually passed.

the-pigeon 9y ago

Why would we do anything to give multi-nationals more power? They need reigned in. If Bernie and Trump are both against the TPP then it's a safe bet it's bad for the people.