Pelosi: If Hillary Is Elected, TPP Will Be ‘Easy’ To Pass

[brendablethyn 536]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be “easy” to pass if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

During a Democratic National Convention platform hearing, Pelosi said, “We have to work on the mechanics, own the ground, get out the vote and win.” 

“And win, and then change these laws. Everything is easy if we win. Voting Rights Act, you name it, TPP … all of these subjects are easy if we win,” Pelosi argued.

In October 2015, Clinton came out against the TPP claiming, “As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/pelosi-if-hillary-is-elected-tpp-will-be-easy-to-pass-video/

[Didymus 34,380]

Cackle at the comments.

[PartySick 172,465]

25 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Cackle at the comments.

"The Flaw-Skank Redemption"

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Judging from her quote, the implication that it is for a pass is a reach.

She said the subjects are easy. In other words it would be far easier to deal with these matters if the Democrats are in charge, from Voting Rights to controversial trade deals. This includes passing, changing, or rejecting them.

But I wouldn't expect any different assumption from a conservative news site like Daily Caller which regularly posts articles about how global warming is a hoax and how transphobia is justified. 

[Luiz 4,253]

is there anything specific about TPP that is wrong or unfair? or is it just the secrecy surrounding it that makes people weary of it?

 

I've seen headlines where people say they don't like what they've read in it so far but i haven't seen anyone mention something specific yet. i don't read all the articles so i'm out of the loop but has any of the TPP. Hillary says she doesnt like what she has learned about it but what exactly did she learn about it?

 

"While Clinton opposes the deal now, she was much more supportive of it before launching her 2016 presidential campaign.

During a speech in Australia as secretary of state in 2012, Clinton praised TPP saying that it “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. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

And in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices,” Clinton asserted that TPP helps Americans by removing “trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property.”

“It was also important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia,” she added.

In June, CNN published a list of 45 times that Clinton claimed she supported TPP."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-comes-out-against-the-trans-pacific-partnership-video/#ixzz4B6ZE02ZP

 

 

what changed? 

[Redstreak 6,653]

but but but I thought she was against the TPP?? At least that's the position she flipped to. I guess she flipped back?

[Morphine Prince 109,653]

Wasn't she supposedly against it?

 

[Emvee 8,826]

 Is Hillary back at it again with her flip flopping? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

59 minutes ago, Luiz said:

is there anything specific about TPP that is wrong or unfair? or is it just the secrecy surrounding it that makes people weary of it?

Most people here don't even know what it's about so don't bother asking for explanations from them. 

There's nothing fundamentally wrong or evil about the TPP.

Most of the dissent was about how secretive the whole affair was. 

Why was it a secret? Well governments argue that public negotiations are always harder than they have to be and secrecy allows negotiators to put forth controversial offers and positions. Ones that aren't necessarily bad but sometimes can be viewed as a weakness for either party. And you know how much politicians like to be strong 

But let's ignore the naive expectation of full disclosure when dealing with foreign powers and focus on the subject of discussing its actual merits and disadvantages.

There is no clear indication of what would happen. Its supporters argue its economic benefits vastly outweigh its negatives. Its detractors say the opposite. It varies by who you ask. I personally oppose it, but I know why I do. 

POSITIVES

What happens is that you're basically connecting 12 global economies into one. 

Some benefits are:

1) Addressing trade barriers that disproportionately challenge small businesses from complex paperwork to bureaucratic regulations, to unnecessarily long shipments. 

2) Barriers are reduced from requiring few documents and pre-processing to faster transnational movement of shipments. 

3) Corruption is also addressed by requiring adoption of laws that combat bribery and conflicts of interest, significant problems that many governments face. 

4) Tariffs and customs reduced.

5) Service providers have better access to the market.

6) Trade balance! For whatever losses the US incurs from trade deals, it gains proportional footholds in foreign markets. The goods trade balance in the USA went from from a $3 billion deficit to a $31 billion surplus. That means the USA is exporting far more than it is importing, and overhead has been reduced.

etc...

It's important to note that trade isn't restricted. The "free" in free trade implies the removal of barriers that slow it to varying degrees, sometimes to the point of effectively preventing it by making it cumbersome. 

A major point of these deals is often to allow trade in exchange for political reform in the target countries. For example you have Vietnam which would have its import tariffs continue unless they comply with the deal.

For example:

1) Fairer labor practices, including freedom to unionize.

2) Curbs child trafficking and labor

3) Expand on women's rights and gender equality

There is no way to enforce this, however if they don't comply then they don't get the benefits.

Also environmental concerns are addressed by promoting better practices. One example is overfishing. TPP requires forbidding illegal catches which make up 30% of the total fishing.

So basically the TPP is designed to bring developing countries into the progressive world while allowing progressive ones to reap the benefits.

Clearly this has political advantage because it makes the USA and Japan more influential.

So the goal is a mixed bag of economic and geopolitical benefits, although they do come at a significant cost.

NEGATIVES

They are:

1) Intellectual property! Basically copyright laws would be much harsher and patent owners would be more rewarded. Some effects include the incrimination of the removal of digital protection. Basically it would also extend copyright duration and would, as many put it, infringe on the public domain.

So if you post a video that contains copyrighted material and it goes viral, you might be criminally and financially liable for copyright violation.

From that alone you would understand why so many hate it.

I doubt they would be as heavily enforced as some imply but it would make the Internet a less free place. This is a major turn-off point for me personally. 

2) Private corporations can seek arbitration against national laws and regulations that affect their freedom to trade. This basically means that private corporations could supersede the government, democratic or otherwise, in these deals.

This one is a tossup.  Private corporations ARE what have fueled innovation for the most part in recent years, not the governments. Furthermore, governments are generally less effective that private corporations in knowing what people need. Also, governments are susceptible to fillibustering and blocking (look at the USA), things private corporations tend to be better at managing.

Then again many people view corporations as big evil boogeymen out to get them so you see why they would dislike this.

3) Following that, one often touted disadvantage is the loss of jobs which will inevitably affect the working class, but I find that argument pretty stupid since any technology or innovation will lead to people losing jobs. What happens is that new ones are created in return, not always as numerous but almost always more lucrative and more effective but still targeted at the working class. Think about when car manufacturing went from conveyor belts to automated machine construction. You still have workers controlling the machines, and you have less workers, but the danger is reduced, efficiency is increased, prices are reduced, and quantity and quality both improve all of which benefit all society.

4) This one is the one that personally bothers me the most. Because of the strict copyright laws, the TPP would create high barriers to entry in the growth sectors of the economy, from pharma to software, which are pretty much reliant on intellectual property and R&D. So TPP might prevent other countries from realizing the benefits of tech development.

This affects entrepreneurship and limits start-ups due to high costs and such. Small and medium sized businesses account for 97% of international trade, but they only account for 30% of US trade. On top of that, they employ approximately half of the U.S. workforce in the non-agricultural private sector.” 

----

So you can see there is plenty of controversy surrounding the TPP. It has its good sides. It has its bad sides. It's not evil but it's not a blessing. It's just another topic with a lot of controversy. Opinions and stances may vary. 

I do not favor it because it limits entrepreneurship, which is something I vehemently disagree with. It's one of the main reasons I opposed Bernie, whose policies would effectively undermine them. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

30 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

but but but I thought she was against the TPP?? At least that's the position she flipped to. I guess she flipped back?

 

21 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Wasn't she supposedly against it?

 

 

14 minutes ago, Rising said:

 Is Hillary back at it again with her flip flopping? 

1) Nancy said this not Hillary. Nancy is not involved in Hillary's campaign. 

2) Saying that something is easy if we win doesn't mean it would be easy to pass. It means that it would be easy to manage. This includes passing, reform, or rejection.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

 

 

1) Nancy said this not Hillary. Nancy is not involved in Hillary's campaign. 

2) Saying that something is easy if we win doesn't mean it would be easy to pass. It means that it would be easy to manage. This includes passing, reform, or rejection.

The fact that her TPP emails were blocked by the Obama administration until after the election isn't really a good sign though. I mean, she's the nominee. Protecting her image from something like that won't exactly hurt her now in that regard. Her opposing it was merely lip service, it's what people have come to expect.

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

What is TPP? The pink print?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

17 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

The fact that her TPP emails were blocked by the Obama administration until after the election isn't really a good sign though. I mean, she's the nominee. Protecting her image from something like that won't exactly hurt her now in that regard. Her opposing it was merely lip service, it's what people have come to expect.

That's a broad assumption based on circumstantial evidence.

One can just as easily conclude that the e-mails contained exchanges that contain hostile attitudes regarding international powers, ones that can have significant damages if they were released now when wounds are still fresh.

One can also conclude that the e-mails can prove damaging to OBAMA, as opposed to Hillary, and would falter his efforts during his lame duck sessions by making further international policy unnecessarily difficult, leaving it to the next president to clean up the mess when they have more time to deal with the fallout.

So... I don't get why you have to go with the most pessimistic reason possible when there are a slew of other reasons that are equally (if not more) likely and that don't have Hillary being a "liar" that you have convinced yourself of being the truth despite every fact checker out there telling you she isn't one any more than another politician including Bernard.

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, CustomGueseppi said:

What is TPP? The pink print?

Trans-Pacific Partnership. Look at my ginormous post above for more information.

[FATCAT 60,888]

59 minutes ago, Luiz said:

is there anything specific about TPP that is wrong or unfair? or is it just the secrecy surrounding it that makes people weary of it?

Secrecy and the fact that multiple sources have assessed it and it basically does nothing to help the nations involved, just individuals. It's basically the epitome of money corrupting politics.