Clinton opposes TPP

Written By: - Date published: 9:35 am, October 8th, 2015 - 103 comments
Categories: capitalism, Globalisation, trade, us politics - Tags: , ,

103 comments on “Clinton opposes TPP ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. savenz 1
    8 October 2015 at 9:42 am

    No surprises there.

  2. Detrie 2
    8 October 2015 at 9:49 am

    If socialist Bernie Sanders doesn’t like it, then Hillary really has to follow him in a lame ‘me too’ strategy. This is the only way she’ll make it to the Whitehouse.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      8 October 2015 at 11:15 am

      Trump also doesn’t like is, so is she following a lame “me too” of him?

      Bernie has no chance of winning the nomination or the election. So she doesn’t have to “me too” anything he does.

      • weka 2.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 12:28 pm

        what does Trump have to do with the democratic nomination?

      • crashcart 2.1.2
        8 October 2015 at 12:57 pm

        Bernie is currently leading in Ohio and New Hampshire the first two primary states. He is already ahead of where Obama was at the same time when people said he couldn’t beat Hilary.

        By no means am I say he will win but it is pretty silly to say he has no chance.

        • dukeofurl 2.1.2.1
          8 October 2015 at 2:38 pm

          “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each lead their party’s respective primary race in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to new polls from Quinnipiac University.”- CNN

          thats OCT 7 , yesterday.Quinnipiac University is a highly regarded pollster.

          Clinton 40, Biden 21, Sanders 19, Lessig 1, O’Malley 0, Webb 0, Chafee 0

          What was that lead you were talking about in Ohio, and when ?
          Sanders does lead in NH, but thats no surprise.

          • Lanthanide 2.1.2.1.1
            8 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

            Probably meant to say Iowa.

          • Phil 2.1.2.1.2
            8 October 2015 at 6:14 pm

            Note that Sanders and the others are trailing behind Biden – Biden’s not even officially in the race! That speaks volumes to the voter appetite for their candidacy.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.2.2
          8 October 2015 at 2:50 pm

          Yes, but looking at the raw numbers and drawing conclusions is very misleading.

          Obama had (and gathered) broad support from democrats, particularly from blacks.

          Bernie is only really popular among white voters. He just doesn’t have the breadth that Obama did.

          • Phil 2.1.2.2.1
            8 October 2015 at 6:11 pm

            Bernie is only really popular among white voters. He just doesn’t have the breadth that Obama did.

            Bernie is really only popular among white, liberal (the USA definition) voters. Groups where Bernie is not popular at all: Black Democrats, Latino Democrats, Moderate (the USA definition) Democrats.

      • Draco T Bastard 2.1.3
        8 October 2015 at 5:00 pm

        Bernie has no chance of winning the nomination or the election.

        And neither does Jeremy Corbyn for Labour…

        Oh, wait…

        • Phil 2.1.3.1
          8 October 2015 at 6:06 pm

          The UK Labour Party election process is so wildly different from the US primary process that there is exactly zero useful value in making that comparison.

  3. Manuka AOR 3
    8 October 2015 at 9:51 am

    “Democratic presidential candidate joins fellow candidate Bernie Sanders in opposing TPP, saying there are too many ‘unanswered questions’ about the deal” http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/07/hillary-clinton-opposes-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp

    In an interview with PBS, Clinton said “as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it”. The former secretary of state added, “I don’t have the text, we don’t yet have all the details, I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I am going to set.” Clinton criticized it in particular for failing to address currency manipulation and because of her worries that “pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits and patients and consumers got fewer”.

    Way to go Hills 🙂

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      8 October 2015 at 10:04 am

      If she becomes President, there are enough loopholes for her to be “for TPP”

      In any case the game will be over once the election comes around.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 11:17 am

        Agree with your first statement, not so much with your second.

        Obama may struggle to get support for it in congress, particularly if congresspeople who are on the fence detect the political winds blowing against it, and depending who wins the party nominations.

        If both the democrat and republican nominees are against the TPPA, is there much point being in favour of it ahead of the election?

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 11:27 am

          There is still time for BIG corporates to donate to republican and democrats election funds… that’s what happened before the fast-track got approved

        • dukeofurl 3.1.1.2
          8 October 2015 at 2:46 pm

          “If both the democrat and republican nominees are against the TPPA, ”

          Well they dont get to have a vote: and the corporations will be only paying off those who do!
          Thats the american system, no point paying a possible future president over TPPA

        • Wayne 3.1.1.3
          8 October 2015 at 3:34 pm

          dukefoil,

          I think you are right about the timing of the vote. It will be in everyone’s interest that it be dealt with by Congress sooner rather later. So much easier for presidential candidates to blame the existing Congress, rather than having to deal with it themselves in 2017.

          • vto 3.1.1.3.1
            8 October 2015 at 3:45 pm

            Hey Wayne..

            1% economic gain after 15 years eh….

            pretty fucking good eh …

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.3.2
            8 October 2015 at 3:49 pm

            Will Dear Leader describe her as misinformed, rent-a-mob, or Labour/Green?

            Which one would be appropriate in your view, Wayne? Or do law commissioners shy away from such speculation?

    • Chooky 3.2
      8 October 2015 at 10:47 am

      +100…great news!….go the good people of USA and the fence sitting politicians will be forced to follow

      Where are the NZ opposition parties on opposing the whole TPP? ! ( not just sniping at the edges)

      I think thus far NZF is out in front in the opposition parties to TPP…or at least it has been most vocal

      • esoteric pineapples 3.2.1
        8 October 2015 at 12:25 pm

        The Green Party has been vocal in its opposition to TPPA and in my region it was Green Party members who organised the protest march. The problem is that the Greens have very few chances to expresses their views in the main stream media.

        • weka 3.2.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 12:29 pm

          They can put out press releases, appear on tv interviews etc.

        • savenz 3.2.1.2
          9 October 2015 at 9:47 am

          @ esoteric pineapples.

          Agree with Chooky the Greens are missing in action in vocal support.

          If you look at the Green Facebook page when TPP was announced they were mostly campaigning for stopping a dam. Shaw very vocal about solar power (which is great) but again if there is a way more important issue like TPP which I believe MOST left and right are against – they are missing the boat on it. Shaw is in the US at present looking at solar options.

          It is a cop out to blame the MSM on this one. The Greens own social media which they control, is pretty weak on TPP.

          Likewise Labour with the internal (and external) sabotage on it’s position – seem to be trying to just pick of small pieces of it to NOT support instead of just saying the whole thing is wrong and being secret they DO NOT support it. Therefore it has become about semantics (like Hillary’s position) which can be manipulated both ways. Sometimes sitting on the fence loses more votes as playing it safe on a contentious issue can anger people who feel the party is coping out.

          NZF is very good at being clearer on it’s position on TPP. There is a lot to be said for clear messaging which the other parties don’t seem to be getting across as well.

      • Tracey 3.2.2
        8 October 2015 at 12:34 pm

        Beware when you and the Republican Party of the USA agree on something. It’s unlikely to be for the same reasons.

      • leftie 3.2.3
        8 October 2015 at 8:00 pm

        @Chooky

        Blame the msm, that are complicit in National’s dirty politics.

      • savenz 3.2.4
        9 October 2015 at 9:38 am

        +1 Chooky

  4. Michael 4
    8 October 2015 at 10:00 am

    Very good.

    She does have a tendency to flip-flop, and this might just be her trying to get more endorsements from the unions — but this is very good. (Bernie has opposed it the whole time!)

    The most ‘establishment’ and ‘centrist’ Democrat you can think of has broken with Obama has come out fully against the TPP. This means that Democrats in Congress could vote against it. If Democrats don’t support it, and some Republicans don’t support it – then the deal is dead.

    • Anne 4.1
      8 October 2015 at 10:18 am

      +1

      Clinton is an highly intelligent woman and now a little light has been shed on the deal I am sure her assessment is genuine. She doesn’t have to be playing a cynical political game all the time. It’s good she has stood up in opposition to the deal and along with Bernie Sanders they could have a major impact on the Congress vote.

      I’m a cynical person (born out of experience) but I sometimes think a few commenters here take it a little too far.

      • One Two 4.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 11:02 am

        Clinton is an highly intelligent woman and now a little light has been shed on the deal I am sure her assessment is genuine.

        The Clinton’s are serial and pathological liars, with many decades experience in deceit

        Perhaps you are not aware of the most recent ’email server’ charade Hillary has put on

        Nothing that comes from the mouth of a Clinton, should go unchallenged

        • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 11:22 am

          “In State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf’s initial statement on the matter last week, she said: “For some historical context, Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on a state.gov email account

          “President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powell. Mr. Powell used a personal account. He says that he didn’t save any of these emails and therefore could not hand them over to the State Department when it asked for them as part of a records preservation effort late last year.
          “I retained none of those e-mails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

          http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/condoleezza-rice-used-a-state-department-email-address/
          Condolezza Rice says she hardly ever used email

        • Tracey 4.1.1.2
          8 October 2015 at 11:28 am

          She and Key have so much in common then

        • Tricledrown 4.1.1.3
          8 October 2015 at 11:34 am

          To just highlight the Clinton’s is the same tactic Fox News ie Rupert Murdoch is doing to the Clinton while the Bushes get get off without comment.
          Draft dodging Coke snorting acholic womanising George W doesn’t get a mention.
          1+2 =0 truth from most politicians
          Repeating right wing Dogma is not your opinion aye One Two.
          Get some guts and start reading a bit wider.

          • One Two 4.1.1.3.1
            8 October 2015 at 3:39 pm

            Repeating right wing Dogma is not your opinion aye One Two.
            Get some guts and start reading a bit wider

            Taking the sentences above from your comment, it reads like you have assumed that my statements against the Clinton’s somehow makes me a ‘right winger’ or GOP

            Perhaps take your own suggestion of ‘reading more widely’, and run with it, slowly…

            Read my lips – They’re all crooks!

      • maui 4.1.2
        8 October 2015 at 11:19 am

        Her job is to work for the corporations and to hide that from the public as best as possible by looking like she has people in her best interests. You only have to look at where her funding comes from to see who she has to answer to. You can bet she would support the tpp if she could get away with it politically.

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1
          8 October 2015 at 12:42 pm

          Correct. Hilary charges US$275,000 per speaking engagement.

          Corporations are lining up.

          Her rebuttal of the TPPA is nothing more than reminding them that they better keep that money flowing.

          It’s corruption of the first degree.

          • tracey 4.1.2.1.1
            8 October 2015 at 12:45 pm

            Can you post how much all of the candidates charge for speaking appearances. Thanks in advance

            • dukeofurl 4.1.2.1.1.1
              8 October 2015 at 2:21 pm

              According to the disclosure, Hillary Clinton delivered 51 speeches in 2014 and the first three months of 2015, earning more than $11 million.
              Her fees varied, but she earned as much as $315,000 for speaking to eBay in San Jose on March 11; she also collected $325,000 for speaking to the technology company Cisco in Las Vegas in August.

              After she left her post, Hillary Clinton’s huge speaking fees at times attracted criticism. In particular, she charged as much as $300,000 to speak at public universities, though she generally donated the funds to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
              http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

              Its hard to imagine here in NZ but the lecture circuit is big business in USA.
              If companies want to pay, thats their choice. The price usually acts as a brake on the number of requests.

              Its no different from you Tracey having a job and being paid for it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 October 2015 at 3:21 pm

                It’s utter corporate bribery via legalised means. Charging US$275K to talk for half an hour, get dinner and cocktails put on, and its all expenses paid on top of that.

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1.1.2
              8 October 2015 at 3:24 pm

              Can you post how much all of the candidates charge for speaking appearances. Thanks in advance

              The rest of the potential Democratic candidates are nobodies who can charge nothing.

              And I’ll guarantee you that Bernie Sanders has NEVER had a corporate speaking engagement worth a couple of hundred grand, and if he was ever offered one, I reckon he’d tell them “no thanks.”

              But he’s not a woman so let’s vote for Hilary.

              • dukeofurl …
                8 October 2015 at 5:49 pm

                Bernie cant do such things as hes a Senator, but I bet he has raised money from corporates – especially the gun lobby who he has a soft spot for. Looking at his data, mostly unions.

                Its easy to do , but for Senators its called a fund raiser and goes to their campaign, not his own wallet

          • alwyn 4.1.2.1.2
            8 October 2015 at 1:13 pm

            Don’t you think that you should put the first two sentences in the past tense?
            ie “Hilary charged” and “Corporations were”.
            I understand she stopped taking paid engagements when she declared for President.

            • dukeofurl 4.1.2.1.2.1
              8 October 2015 at 2:23 pm

              ” Hillary Clinton delivered 51 speeches in 2014 and the first three months of 2015, earning more than $11 million.”

              She was “running” during that time but official “declaration” came only recently.
              candidates put it off for as long as possible as onerous financial rules come into being when they do.

      • Nigel Gregory 4.1.3
        8 October 2015 at 11:24 am

        Hillary Clinton seems to be following Bernie Sanders lead, both in the polls and policy.
        She is no friend of the left.
        Another Democrat solidly in the neo-liberal camp. Bernie Sanders is what has got the wind up Hillary Clinton and she is canny enough to recognise it.

    • Chooky 4.2
      8 October 2015 at 10:48 am

      +100…Michael and Anne

  5. Michael 5
    8 October 2015 at 10:11 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=141&v=Jeh-14A8Rbc

    Here’s the video interview if anyone’s interested.

  6. One Two 6
    8 October 2015 at 10:38 am

    A pathological liar makes a statement….

    • Nick 6.1
      8 October 2015 at 11:05 am

      @OneTwo…..but it is a statement of intent against TPP (which is great), and one that if she reverses back to supporting it, will reinforce her looking like a pathological liar (as you say) which will make it worse for her politically – shes made a big political call……Good old Bernie Sanders (awesome dude…he may save us yet) ….and NZHerald writers are going to have to make coment on Hillary’s stance……not including Hoskings (always reminds me of a sock puppet whenever I see him).

    • Tracey 6.2
      8 October 2015 at 11:29 am

      A pathological liar makes a statement…. and wins 3 terms in Government in NZ

    • dukeofurl 6.3
      8 October 2015 at 11:30 am

      Care to amplify your wild claims with some facts Onetwo
      It breaches site policy to claim as fact something that isnt. I know LP is too busy but still…

    • Tricledrown 6.4
      8 October 2015 at 11:41 am

      Trumpeting only One side of the story.
      When are you going to put forward your opinion.
      On the prehistoric misogynist,racist dinosaur Donald Trump.
      One Two his Policy on TPPA is anti.
      Come on One Two you had better scamper of to Fox News and and learn your lines.

  7. Nigel Gregory 7
    8 October 2015 at 11:28 am

    It’s really disappointing to me that our main opposition party, a party of the left, is so damn mealy mouthed on this issue.
    We are all googling other countries media to find opposition to the TPP but at home the Labour party, my party, nothing but vague lawyer language.

    • Tracey 7.1
      8 October 2015 at 11:30 am

      Maybe they are using this time, and their sources, to get some decent analysis of the deal so they can hit hard and without comeback?

      • Nigel Gregory 7.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 11:32 am

        I hope you are correct because it’s not hard to find fault with this deal, especially around big pharmaceuticals push for IP secrecy and patent extensions.

        • Tracey 7.1.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 11:34 am

          That’s the thing though Nigel, we don’t know the deal, the Government does, and I suspect some of its well-placed supporters to assist spread the message OR some well placed supporters being sent missives to spread the message.

          Too easy for an opposition party to be made to look foolish when the cards are all held by one side.

          • Nigel Gregory 7.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2015 at 11:40 am

            Agree in some sense but it doesn’t stop opposition in principle to these sorts deals, with respect to corporate hegemony, from the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.

            It is the Labour party after all.

            • Hanswurst 7.1.1.1.1.1
              8 October 2015 at 7:55 pm

              To be fair, they advancing principles against (what they believe is in) it is exactly what they have done.

      • weka 7.1.2
        8 October 2015 at 12:35 pm

        “Maybe they are using this time, and their sources, to get some decent analysis of the deal so they can hit hard and without comeback?”

        Yeah but how hard would it have been to have had clear and consistent messaging ready for when the deal was signed? Not the detailed policy position, but the broad stokes. Instead, it’s the usual waffly, hedging their bets, we don’t know what they really think Labour.

        They did get something on the FP of their website within a day or se, it’s pretty generic but reiterates under what conditions they would oppose, so why not use that?

        And why not say what they would actually do if their conditions aren’t met? Instead we now have Robertson saying that things have to be weighed up, which basicaly means that Labour could do anything. No bottom lines, no values-based positions, no sign posts of direction, more of the same old let’s see which way the weather vane blows.

        Besides which, I’m not holding my breath on Labour using their time well.

        • Tracey 7.1.2.1
          8 October 2015 at 12:36 pm

          Well, maybe they are releasing stuff and not much is being reprinted?

        • dukeofurl 7.1.2.2
          8 October 2015 at 2:27 pm

          Greens havent said much either, weka will have a double face palm!

          But the greens arent sleeping ,they are busy with…… things that dont matter!!

          “The Green Party is celebrating a big win this week: National has finally run a competitive tender process for New Zealand’s biggest banking contract – the Government’s banking contract. A result of our pushing for a tender ”
          blog.greens.org.nz

          Oh dear , the sorrow and the pity.

  8. One Two 8
    8 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/hillary-flip-flops-tpp-shuns-obamas-trade-plan-after-publicly-supporting-it-45-times

    In what seems like a nervous populist move amid Bernie Sanders’ gains, Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped rather stunningly to oppose President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership. Despite supporting the bill at least 45 times, as CNN’s Jake Tapper points out, Clinton told PBS’ Judy Woodruff Wednesday in Iowa that, “As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.” It’s also a departure from the Clinton legacy, as CNN notes, it was President Bill Clinton who, two decades ago, signed the first mega-regional pact: the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    Hillary claiming to have not had access or information to form an understanding , previously

    • Tracey 8.1
      8 October 2015 at 12:37 pm

      The USA “Anyone but a woman” for President

      • Colonial Viper 8.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 12:38 pm

        Being Black or a Woman is irrelevant for the position.

        Being a co-operative corporate shill and enabler of the military industrial complex is the only qualification required.

        Hilary fits the bill. As it were.

        • tracey 8.1.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 12:44 pm

          yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

          A country with a history of racism preferred a black man ahead of a woman far more qualified. Have a look at where the attacks on her come from, and the nature of them. Not the first politician to flip flop… her short comings get rooted out very quickly, and repeated ad nauseum.

          I don’t care for uS politics but my view based on watching, reading and studying for some time is that they will elect ANYONE else before they elect a woman.

          • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1.1
            8 October 2015 at 1:55 pm

            Where has she flip flopped ? It may come after she elected but the die will be cast then.

            All the statements were when she was Secretary of State, working for Obama, and following his policies.

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.2
            8 October 2015 at 2:51 pm

            I don’t care for uS politics but my view based on watching, reading and studying for some time is that they will elect ANYONE else before they elect a woman.

            We’re talking Hilary Clinton here.

            A woman so power hungry that she hung in with Bill despite his numerous atrocious marital infidelities and the humiliation of the Starr inquiry simply so that she could stay in the circles of power.

            You support that woman warmonger ahead of a true left winger like Bernie Sanders if you like, but I’m not.

        • Manuka AOR 8.1.1.3
          8 October 2015 at 1:37 pm

          “Being Black or a Woman is irrelevant for the position. “

          There has never been a female President of the US of A, and yet you claim the gender of the candidate is irrelevant?

          Are you saying the absence of female presidents is merely coincidence?
          Or that there have been no women qualified for the role?

          • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.3.1
            8 October 2015 at 2:55 pm

            There has never been a female President of the US of A, and yet you claim the gender of the candidate is irrelevant?

            Are you saying the absence of female presidents is merely coincidence?
            Or that there have been no women qualified for the role?

            Maybe you think Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin are qualified.

            Let me clue you up here, 99.5% of men who try to run for the US Presidency don’t get the job either.

            Or maybe you have to be a man to be stupid enough to want the job and age 20 years in the span of 8 years.

      • One Two 8.1.2
        8 October 2015 at 1:55 pm

        I would have thought a POTUS not being the puppet of criminal cartels, or an outright criminal cartel member, should be the first priority…

    • Das 8.2
      8 October 2015 at 1:01 pm

      “as of today” !!!

      haha! hilarious, Hills!

      i was going to joke that Hills would have inserted a qualifying phase somewhere and i was also going to suggest she probably muttered under her breath “at this stage”, “presently”, “currently”, “for now” or such like.

      but thanks for pointing that out and i assume that has been correctly reported.

      oh well, today is today and tomorrow is another day. next month, who knows? and next year, well, that will be too far too tell 🙂

      just say what it takes to win at this stage, mmm or as of today !

    • dukeofurl 8.3
      8 October 2015 at 1:53 pm

      As Obamas SoS she had to follow the boss’s orders.

      None of those statements are afterFeb 1 2013 when she was replaced as SoS
      The newest one is dated
      1. January 31, 2013: Remarks on American Leadership at the Council on Foreign Relations

      So you have a big fail. All you have proved is that she was following Obamas orders. It would be inconceivable in the american system for her to have a different policy position while working for the President.

      • One Two 8.3.1
        8 October 2015 at 1:59 pm

        The fail comes from those who support and cheer-lead for the career criminals and endorse systems which are exterminating life on planet earth

        Reading your comments on this thread, you come across as being one of the ‘cheer-leaders’

        • dukeofurl 8.3.1.1
          8 October 2015 at 2:13 pm

          You are entitled to this sort of the “end is coming nonsense” but they have been saying it for over 2000 years , so we are all a bit bored.

          Going to retract the nonsense about Hilary 45 flip flops, because I have proved it lacks any factual basis.

          note the site rules
          “This includes making assertions that you are unable to substantiate with some proof (and that doesn’t mean endless links to unsubstantial authorities) ”

          Clearly you didnt realise it wasnt until FEB 1st 2013 that HC stopped following Obama administration policy.

          • One Two 8.3.1.1.1
            8 October 2015 at 2:25 pm

            Multiple ‘appeals to authority’ in your comments are entertaining and sad at the same time

            I’m sure there is a sissies anonymous meeting that you are running late for

            • dukeofurl 8.3.1.1.1.1
              8 October 2015 at 2:33 pm

              So you have flop flopped away from trying to justifying the anti Hilary nonsense and are back to the end is nigh.
              Are you sure your underground bunker is deep enough ?

              • Colonial Viper …
                8 October 2015 at 5:27 pm

                Mate the Sec State has a huge role in shaping foreign policy and deciding what options are on the table and what options are not.

                To say that the Sec State (or the Sec Def) simply follow the President’s orders is ridiculous.

                If anything, they can heavily filter the information, options and decisions which end up on the President’s desk.

                • dukeofurl …
                  8 October 2015 at 5:54 pm

                  Absolutely untrue.

                  They have to follow the administration line, just like here.

                  Major issues like this are micromanaged from the White house. Trade would only be peripheral her diplomacy job, as they have specialist people for that.
                  Notice McCully following Groser around ? Didnt think so.

  9. Robert Atack 9
    8 October 2015 at 1:04 pm

    America’s deep state is completely corrupt: it exists to sell out the public interest, and includes both major political parties as well as government officials. Politicians like the Clintons who leave the White House “broke” and accumulate $100 million in a few years exemplify how it rewards. A bloated Pentagon churns out hundreds of unneeded flag officers who receive munificent pensions and benefits for the rest of their lives. And no one is punished, ever. Disgraced former general and CIA Director David Petraeus is now a partner at the KKR private equity firm, even though he knows nothing about financial services. More recently, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has become a Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies. Both are being rewarded for their loyalty to the system and for providing current access to their replacements in government.

    What makes the deep state so successful? It wins no matter who is in power, by creating bipartisan-supported money pits within the system. Monetizing the completely unnecessary and hideously expensive global war on terror benefits the senior government officials, beltway industries, and financial services that feed off it. Because it is essential to keep the money flowing, the deep state persists in promoting policies that make no sense, to include the unwinnable wars currently enjoying marquee status in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan. The deep state knows that a fearful public will buy its product and does not even have to make much of an effort to sell it.

    Taken from this article:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/

  10. Tricledrown 10
    8 October 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Tracy bogged down in bigotry .
    How is it Hillary Clinton is more qualified than Obama.
    Next you will semantic with Semitism.
    So Obama being a Man Trumped Hillary,
    My opinion is that Obama is a much better communicator.
    Obama didn’t have the taint of Bills daliences or the corruption stench pushed by the Murdochcracy.
    Now Hillary has her chance .
    The Door is wide open for her it will come down to her ability to get enough people out to vote for.
    The Republicans have no one to match her.
    Like in the last election the Republicans are destroying themselves with the Latino vote especially.
    So as I said the door is wide open for Hillary’s run hopefully I am right.
    If we get an Republican president were in big trouble.

  11. red-blooded 11
    8 October 2015 at 1:13 pm

    I’ve got to agree with you there, tracey. Hilary Clinton got pushed aside by “Yes, we can” Obama, but she took the hit and served in his administration. She’s a smart, experienced politician but she’s seen as having the wrong genitals for the job. When will the US get over it and elect a woman?

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      8 October 2015 at 2:46 pm

      Clinton is a blood thirsty corporate warmonger whose role as Sec State oversaw thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and the continuing support of Mid East dictatorships against their own citizens, not to mention incidents like the cold blooded killing of the elderly cripple Osama Bin Laden.

      Cheer her on if you wish but I won’t be.

      • Robert Atack 11.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 5:28 pm

        Lets not forget Waco, those children did not deserve to be gassed to death, thinking of the photo of the chard renames one of the kids bent in half backwards. Everyone with a TV was watching that tragedy unfold. What were the Clinton’s and the Gore’s doing?
        And on the funny side, from 2008
        Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.

        In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia.

        Several news outlets disputed the claim and a video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326

        But she was sticking to her story -She also told CNN last week 2008: “There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened.”
        Ignoring the video footage

  12. Nigel Gregory 12
    8 October 2015 at 1:28 pm

    As a left leaning citizen in the US you would be compelled to support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton irrespective of gender.

    While I would be first in line to applaud a female president it would not be at the expense of decent social policy of which the Clinton camp is left wanting.

    It really is too bad Hillary Clinton has so much baggage, not all of it flattering.

    A neo liberal through and through unfortunately.

    • dukeofurl 12.1
      8 October 2015 at 2:06 pm

      A lot of the “baggage” stories are just misogyny.
      I ve pulled part the 45 times she supported TPP( as Obamas employee!!)

      Yes she is a centrist by our standards, but Sanders isnt going to win and have you seen how far right the GOP has become.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        8 October 2015 at 2:49 pm

        The Clinton’s are not “centrist” they are right wing corporate stooges. Bill Clinton destroyed social welfare payments in the US, repealed Glass Stegal on the suggestion of the financial sector, and signed in NAFTA which decimated the American working class and US industry.

        “Centrist” indeed, what a fucking joke.

      • Nigel Gregory 12.1.2
        8 October 2015 at 3:33 pm

        I’m not solely describing her TPP policy changes but her role as secretary of state.
        The record is clear and easily searched.
        Centrist by our standards would be kind. As I said she is no friend of the left, and certainly no socialist, leading to many on the left to be supportive of Bernie Sanders.
        Maybe Sanders won’t win, maybe he will, but the Clinton camp is clearly playing catch up to him and his policy stances.
        The misogyny claim is a red herring in this context as many would applaud a female president, me included, just not at the expense of decent social policy.
        The Sanders message has some legs.

  13. PI 13
    8 October 2015 at 2:03 pm

    The somewhat ironic thing is that much of the US opposition to TPP (including, seemingly, from Hillary) is that the deal is not good enough for the US. Put another way, the worry is that the deal is too good for the other TPP members.

    Interestingly, there also appears to be a worry that the investor state dispute resolution procedure is not a trojan horse for US multinationals suing non-US governments but, rather, a mechanism to allow foreign (not US) corporations to sue the US.

    See for example: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/06/the-future-of-trans-pacific-trade/the-trans-pacific-pact-would-kill-jobs-and-consumer-protection

  14. Michael 14
    8 October 2015 at 4:26 pm

    A female president I’d definitely support is Elizabeth Warren.

    I’m a feminist, and I’d love to see a female president. But I support Bernie Sanders, because I think he’d be a far better President. I would like to see him choose a woman for his running mate. Kirsten Gillibrand would be a good choice.

  15. emergency mike 15
    9 October 2015 at 12:21 am

    She should promise to close Gitmo too. That worked well for Obama.

    It’s a bit late now isn’t it? I oppose the TPP too. Vote for me…

  16. The lost sheep 16
    9 October 2015 at 9:51 am

    No doubt it’s nearly all rotten to the core, but here’s another perspective on the TPPA….
    For years my company has been seeing the Canadian, US and Japanese markets as fantastic opportunities for expansion – but been unable to expand into them because 20-30% tariffs meant our 100% NZ sourced and manufactured product would be uncompetitively priced.

    I’ve watched other companies shift 1000’s of manufacturing jobs off shore in order to be able to take their product into those markets.
    Being unwilling to sell out a single Kiwi job, I’ve sat here on my hands consoling myself with the thought that if the tariffs ever did come down, by retaining our 100% NZ status we would be able to move into those markets with the unique competitive advantage ‘Made in New Zealand’ provides.

    So if the TPPA goes through, our company will grow very strongly, add many NZ jobs, offer increased benefits to current employees, and provide significant flow on benefits to NZ companies that supply us raw materials and services….

    But I doubt it will go through. As Clinton is saying outright “America is less competitive than we should be…… We’re going into this with one arm tied behind our backs.
    Congress knows this also, and rather than reform American industry, they will continue to support protectionism.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.