Clinton Friend Admits What Everyone Knows Is True: Clinton Still Supports TPP & Will Back It

from the but-of-course dept

If you've followed the whole TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) thing at all, and/or the Presidential election this year, you probably already know that Hillary Clinton famously flip-flopped on TPP. She was for it, before she was against it (and tried to rewrite history to hide her support of it). Of course, basically everyone recognized that her newfound concerns about TPP were made up, as a response to (at the time) surging support for Bernie Sanders, who was vocally against the agreement. But, of course, as tons of people have been saying all along, everyone expects that after the election she'll magically flip flop back to supporting TPP.

But, of course, because we're doing this big elaborate stage play called an election, no one's supposed to admit that's what's happening. Someone apparently forgot to tell that to Terry McAuliffe, current Virginia governor and long term best buddies with the Clintons. On Tuesday, he said what everyone already knows: Clinton will absolutely support the TPP after the election:
“I worry that if we don’t do TPP, at some point China’s going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this,” he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. “Once the election’s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.”

Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”
And, of course, her Vice Presidential pick Tim Kaine did an even faster flip flop. Last Thursday, before he was announced as the running mate, he spoke out in support of TPP.
"I am having discussions with a lot of groups around Virginia about the treaty itself. I see much in it to like,” Kaine said Thursday during a series of roundtable events in suburban northern Virginia. “I think it's an upgrade of labor standards, I think it's an upgrade of environmental standards. I think it's an upgrade of intellectual property protections."
The very next day he was named the VP pick, and suddenly he's against TPP:
Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.

Kaine spokeswoman Amy Dudley said Saturday that the Virginia Democrat shared his negative views on the trade deal with Clinton this week, confirming a report by The Washington Post. “He agreed with her judgment that it fell short” when it came to protecting wages and national security, a Clinton aide reportedly told the newspaper.
Of course, now that McAuliffe blabbed the not-very-secret strategy of the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates flat out lying... the Clinton campaign went into damage control mode and insisted "nuh-uh, she really is against TPP." They trotted out an "adviser," Gene Sperling to insist there's no flip flop planned:
“What she has said is she is against it now, she is against in the lame duck and she’s against it afterwards, and I do believe that when she starts her administration, she is going to want to be focused on unifying Democrats,” he said.
Then, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta also stepped up to insist that Clinton would not flip flop after the election:
Keep those links handy, folks, because after the election they may be useful. I'm posting that Podesta tweet as a screenshot, in case it magically disappears from Twitter...

Of course, the truly amazing thing here? For the longest time, it's been the Republicans who were the driving force on agreements like the TPP, and there was only pressure on getting enough Democrats to support those agreements. Now we have a Republican Presidential candidate who seems to be vehemently against the TPP (though for thoroughly clueless reasons) and a Democratic Presidential candidate who is secretly supporting it. This election season is topsy turvy.

Filed Under: donald trump, flip flop, gene sperling, hillary clinton, john podesta, politics, terry mcauliffe, tim kaine, tpp, trade


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 10:51am

    "Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephants in this room."

    “Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”

    Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.


    It's a good thing that nothing like, oh I dunno, let's call it 'Fast Track Authority' is in place making it so that 'trade' deals like this are essentially given 'Take it or leave it' status for the next few years(at least), making any tweaks or changes impossible, and all those 'worries' about parts of them utterly meaningless.

    Worries about pieces are meaningless unless those worries are enough to torpedo the entire thing, which I really doubt is the case, so this is nothing more than dishonestly trying to have it both ways, appearing to care about the concerns of those against the 'trade' deals while knowing full well the lip service given to those concerns are ultimately completely empty.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MakeItATreatyOrNoDeal, 27 Jul 2016 @ 10:57am

    Corporate Activism vs State Sponsered Treaties

    If the content of the TPP were as good and acceptable for trade, why doesn't it rise to the level of a formal treaty?

    That right there folks...

    If it's not good enough for government treaties, it's not good for the public. Period. Full stop.

    If it's not good enough for congress let alone the public from every country it effects to read, then it's not worth the ink used to print it. Period. Full Stop.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:06am

    Pelosi is also suddenly against it. I wonder how long that will last.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:08am

    Guess you will just have to vote Trump! Or pretend there is another choice. That's always fun too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      aethercowboy (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:20am

      Re:

      You know, if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:58am

        Re: Re:

        I thought that was Trump?! Now I'm completely confused! (I have a feeling that's how they want me/us, though)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:25pm

        "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

        ...for extremely huge values of enough.

        If a miraculous and amazing number of people voted for a third party, you could get about a quarter to a third of the votes, and spoil the election for the Democrats...

        ...putting Trump in office, of course.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Jul 2016 @ 5:30am

          Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

          Or you could spoil the election for Trump, putting Hillary in office. People are so concerned about keeping Tweedledumber out they're prepared to let Tweedledumb in.

          Why not vote third party? Chances are, either one of Bad or Worse will get in, but shouldn't we be sending a message to the powers that be?

          Oh wait, Trump is the message to the powers that be, the result of years of "Better Kang than Kodos." If President Trump is the only way to break this vicious cycle, bring him on.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Almost Anonymous (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 5:47am

            Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

            "Oh wait, Trump is the message to the powers that be, the result of years of "Better Kang than Kodos." If President Trump is the only way to break this vicious cycle, bring him on."

            Do you like nuclear holocaust? Because that's how you get nuclear holocaust.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2016 @ 6:25am

              Re: Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

              He's not the one threatening a no fly zone.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2016 @ 6:42am

              Re: Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

              1. i am betting dollars to donut holes that u
              we have a much higher chance of nukes flying under cliton than t-rump...
              2. BECAUSE of the non-stop t-rump bashing AND concomittant cliton lionization, i am considering voting for him SOLELY to piss off the people who claim i 'owe' MY vote to who THEY claim is the lesser of two evils, but who i consider to be a lessor of true eee-vil...
              3. but i will probably do what i did last election and write in ed snowden and chelsea manning, far more qualified by sheer dint of actually posessing a functioning moral compass...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 10:23am

                Nukes

                Hillary Clinton may be a crook and an imbecile when it comes to technology, but she's pragmatic. She's not going to nuke anyone because she'll actually listen to the military advisors why we don't nuke people.

                In fact, years being Secretary of State, she probably understands.

                Trump on the other hand is an unstable volcano, and when he decides that he needs retribution, he just wants the biggest club with which to do it. So not only do I think he's going to nuke someone, but he's going to nuke a nation over a slight by one of its officials. Trump is not one for proportional response.

                And if he doesn't nuke someone, it's pretty certain he's going to send our nation to war over petty bullshit.

                And this is not getting into his policy when he's not wanting to work off some aggression. Either he's going to build a wall, halt immigration and intern Muslim Americans, or he's going to delegate to Pence, which is going to give us another extreme-Conservative Bush era.

                Clinton will respond the way presidents typically respond, which is to mass public outcry, or legislative obstruction. Sadly, she'll still let the CIA torture people and bomb Afghani civilians. She'll still let the police murder people with impunity and route minorities into prisons. And she will still overclassify and torture / imprison whistleblowers until they snap and rot.

                But she won't nuke anyone.

                And I totally can't say the same thing for Trump.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 11:00am

                  Re: Nukes

                  There is basically no oversight outside the military for launching nuclear weapons. So if we elect Trump, we're relying on a narcissist world leader with the attention span of a kindergartener to keep his cool enough to not nuke anyone for at least four years. Or for the military to disobey an order from the commander in chief if he does decide to push the button. This ought to be enough to keep him out of office, but then there have been a lot of things that ought to have been enough to end his run.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            aethercowboy (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 7:24am

            Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

            It's funny, because when I tell my Republican friends my support of a Third Party Candidate(!) they say: "But then Clinton will win!"

            And when I say the same to my Democrat friends, they say "But then Trump will win!"

            It's like Schrodinger's Election.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 10:09am

              Schrodinger's election

              That's exactly what it is. We won't know who gets elected until we observe it, though not due to quantum indeterminacy but due to the chaos of large-scale social dynamics. No-one knows until after the fact who the lucky butterfly is that chooses between floods or drought.

              Your friends seem to believe you're going to vote as they do, either against Hillary (for the Republicans) or against Trump (for the Democrats).

              By voting for a third party, you're not voting against either, but that means that you're not voting against the one you would have voted against, had you chosen to vote against one.

              See how that works? We vote defensively in FPTP.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2016 @ 8:11pm

            Re: Re: "if enough people pretended, our shared hallucination could be a reality."

            Why not vote third party?

            Why vote party at all? Vote individual.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:03pm

      Re:

      Yeah, Trump is against TPP - LOL

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 9:05am

      Re:

      Or pretend there is another choice. That's always fun too.

      That seems to be what the Bernie or Bust people are doing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:15am

    What a choice...

    A dumpster fire of an election all around.

    Is it too late to start a "None of the above" campaign?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:18am

      Re: What a choice...

      As a Canadian, let me just say I think we should get started on *our* wall now rather than wait.. :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re: What a choice...

        You guys are cool with paying for it right?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Baron von Robber, 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:28am

          Re: Re: Re: What a choice...

          Be sure to put in writing on the wall, "You hosers stay on that side, eh?"

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:53am

          Re: Re: Re: What a choice...

          When Trump talks about money sent to other countries, keep in mind that it's often conditional: The money must be used to buy goods from American defense contractors. The American tax payers aren't so much subsidizing other countries as they're subsidizing politically connected American corporations.

          Under those conditions, Trump's promise that Mexico "will pay for the wall" is entirely realistic. Canada? Why not.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:18am

    Picking the shiniest of turds...This election is gonna go down in history...aww hell...after this election, the only ones around to care about it will be some cockroaches, some politicians, and a few lawyers...oh and maybe a twinkie or two.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mjm1138 (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 11:58am

    Nice journalism Techdirt

    Wow, apparently you now have special insight into "what everyone knows is true", and special insight into the Clinton's relationship with McAuliffe. No need to do any actual reporting at all! I doubt very much that Trump "opposes" TPP in any meaningful sense (as in, in the sense that he could tell you even one provision of the agreement). I'd say he's far more likely to "flip" on it if elected. But yes, let's trash Clinton because McAuliffe is an idiot.

    Meanwhile, be sure to ignore the story of Trump requesting that a hostile foreign government commit cyber crimes against his political opponent. I guess that's not your beat, eh?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:06pm

      Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

      Ummm, good points and all - but this is not a "news" site.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        I.T. Guy, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

        Sorry but it's more so than Fox or CNN.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Jul 2016 @ 5:36am

          Re: Re: Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

          I've found more useful, in-depth reporting here in TD on the issues that matter to me than anywhere else. I'm not exaggerating: on legislation, FTAs, copyright and IPR, and on freedom of speech issues Mike and the team do a great job of collating and explaining what's happening in a way I can understand. Mashable is pretty good, CNet's not too bad, Wired is okay and Ars Technica is good in places (when they're not hosting ignorant op-eds in the name of being fair and balanced — don't get me started!), but TD beats them all hands down, not just for the actual reporting but also for the informative comments section.

          No, I don't own shares in Techdirt and I'm not being paid to shill it, but I do love it. Techdirt is my go-to place for news and views about online life. So yeah, nice journalism, Techdirt. Keep up the great work. :)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:16pm

      Someone struck a nerve

      Do you have any actual argument for why he's wrong beyond 'McAuliffe is an idiot', or is that it? She and her running mate were both for TPP before and then changed their mind, the latter almost literally overnight, and people are supposed to believe that they're telling the truth now, when it's most politically expedient to be against it, as opposed to before, when it wasn't as likely to cost them votes?

      Also I notice you didn't spend any time at all mentioning all the other wrongdoing by every other politician on the planet, guess that's 'not your beat, eh?' I mean come now, if you're going to mention the actions/statements of one politician you have to bring up the actions and/or statements of all of them less you be accused of only focusing on one while ignoring the other(s), that's just how it works, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

      "I'd say he's far more likely to "flip" on it if elected"
      So... thats your ASSumption, correct? Did you do any actual reporting on that at all? Funny how the proven actions, i.e, flip-flopping you ignore while projecting your OPINION that Trump is "far more likely" to flip.

      To set the record right he actually said:
      “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said at a press conference in Doral, Florida, Wednesday morning after the second night of the Democratic convention. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

      LOL. It was a joke idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:38pm

      Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

      We don't "special insight". We only need the long, long record on who has been pro-TPP. (And other, similar gems. And pro-fast track, and pro-secrecy, and completely misrepresenting what are in these "trade" deals...)

      The article wasn't about Trump. He was mentioned not even by name as sort of a comparative foil.

      No one ignored here ignored the "DNC hack". Maybe you ignored everything except this particular article. Which apparently shouldn't exist, or be entirely uncritical of Clinton. This article is about it's subject. It's not a politically-motivated list of reasons to be anti-Clinton.

      The facts suck, I know. But some of you Clinton supporters should check yourselves, you aren't doing her any favors. (Not that every dog that's been in this fight hasn't had some truly awful supporters.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Teamchaos (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

      SPIN ALERT!
      You're buying into the democrat's spin that Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. He was asking them to RELEASE the 30,000 deleted emails that they would have if they had hacked Clinton's email. The FBI couldn't even find those emails and, according to Clinton, they are mostly about yoga classes and weddings, there is really nothing to worry about if they release them.

      FTFY

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 3:44pm

      Re: Nice journalism Techdirt

      Take a deep breath and maybe do a little research before you launch the kneejerk attack. You'll look a little less like an idiot.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:25pm

    Obama & a Lameduck session is the real issue

    The real issue right now with TPP getting passed against the will of the voters isn't the next president. It's Obama and the Lame duck session of congress.

    There's widespread belief, especially among TPP backers, that Obama will get congress to ram through passing TPP during the lame duck session (after congress doesn't have to worry about the voters wrath for another 2 years), no matter what the results of the election.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 12:26pm

    So dump both major party candidates and vote libertarian.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      So dump both major party candidates and vote libertarian.

      Don't vote along party lines at all. Be independent and vote based on individuals.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 1:46pm

    aNYONE, pLEASE?

    I have a BIG question about TPP and All the rest of the TRADE AGREEMENTS..

    What is in it for THOSE voting for it??
    Really..What are they going to get for making it so that WE LOOSE our rights to Personal protections from Shoddy corp mentality?

    They have already CUT quality back to the point you will need to RE-Purchase most products and devices every 5-10 years...and for many smaller devices, EVERY YEAR...

    Some times I feel like a RICH person, being able/NEEDING a new car every 5 years..Just get the Old one paid off and TIME for a new car.

    What has happened to the IDEA of Quality. We are paying like MOST of this stuff is WORTH SOMETHING.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 1:56pm

      Re: aNYONE, pLEASE?

      What has happened to the IDEA of Quality.
      It went out with the idea of proper capitalization.

      The capitalistic system is well and truly broken.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ECA (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 6:38pm

        Re: Re: aNYONE, pLEASE?

        tHE reality IS Going to hit them HARD..
        They are selling out the country. soon they will NOT have ajob.
        Shadowrun, here we come..

        Many States have sold out, by declaring that SOME corps arent TAXED..
        its Stupid.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 2:10pm

    One word: bitch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 4:58pm

    We need a Kaine mutiny

    ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2016 @ 7:13pm

    If she does support it, she will lose much of the support of the democratic part. Some could be seen in the arena holding up signs opposing TPP.

    If she comes out backing TPP, she will hand the election to trump.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2016 @ 7:47pm

      'Funny' thing about elections and promises, once the former is over with there's nothing stopping someone from completely ignoring the latter.

      If she is in favor of TPP, as seems to be the case, the public will only find out for sure once it's too late to change their vote and it reaches the point of 'Roll over and take it' vs 'Mass protests in hopes that the politicians pay attention to the will of the public.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 6:37am

      Re:

      If she does support it, she will lose much of the support of the democratic part. Some could be seen in the arena holding up signs opposing TPP.

      If she comes out backing TPP, she will hand the election to trump.


      I think you missed the point. No one thinks she'll support TPP *before* the election. It's *after* that she'll switch.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2016 @ 5:01am

    Hillary was against it, before she was for it

    If people don't realize by now that Hillary will do or say whatever she needs to do or say to get her way at any given moment, then there isn't much hope for them. She will say whatever she has to say to get elected. Once elected she will become a tyrant.

    She will not go after the rich because she has enriched herself to the tune of $150 million, most of which she got peddling influence while in the State Dept.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 9:18am

      Re: Hillary was against it, before she was for it

      Hillary was against it, before she was for it

      True, but very little of that (only your prediction of tyranny really) is specific to Hillary. It applies equally to nearly every politician, at least above the local level.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, 28 Jul 2016 @ 7:06am

    Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

    I think the only "religious" belief Hillary Clinton has, is in getting elected, and then getting re-elected. Beyond that, I suppose she has ambitions for Chelsea. Once Hilary understood that TPP could be a campaign issue, she dropped it like a hot potato, and scooted backwards, in the most undignified possible fashion. Once elected, she will continue to be governed by expediency. Politicians take bribes over issues they think are unimportant, things which they think are not campaign issues. In their world votes are more important than money, and translating money into votes is highly problematic. Even if Trump loses the election, the "Trumpers" are not going to go away. Hilary will always be trying to cajole them into supporting some measure or other, and TPP will be expendable. She is not going to waste energy trying to push through something which has been rejected by ninety percent of the voters.

    One further point, Terry McAuliffe is himself highly expendable. As Prince Hal says to his old crony Falstaff, at the end of Henry IV: "Old man, I know thee not!" The "Friend of Hal" promptly finds himself in jail.

    Hilary has been presenting herself mostly as the "Anti-Trump," the one who is not crazy, the one who does not brag about her connections with foreign dictators, etc. However, in Hillary's younger and more enthusiastic days, circa 1992, she liked to compare herself to Eleanor Roosevelt. Once she has disposed of Trump, I think she will pursue traditional Democratic objectives, such as National Health Insurance. To do that, she will need the votes of the Trumpers. Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything. Beyond this kind of traditional policy, the big unavoidable problem is going to be what to do about the Mexicans. Mexico is much nearer than China, and cannot be dealt with at arm's length.

    The Republican Party has experienced a catastrophe of the same order that it experienced in 1932. The people who voted for Trump are not going to go back to voting for someone like Mitt Romney. One implication is that businessmen no longer have a political home. For some time, politicians will be acting on businessmen, and not the other way around. Politicians will be competing with each of the others to see who can push the businessmen around more. The spectacle of Democratic and Republican legislators bidding to denounce the drug monopolist Martin Skrelli was a portent of things to come. Intelligent businessmen will be scrambling to revamp their production processes, to become less reliant on imports or cheap labor. Of course, they will have to do this without raising prices. Those that succeed will have a competitive advantage, as trade barriers become more stringent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 9:21am

      Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

      Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything.

      You need the support of a majority of both houses of Congress (or sometimes a supermajority). The public doesn't get any input between elections. Very few issues have 80% popular support, and I would guess most of those are not being acted upon because Congress isn't interested (eg campaign finance reform, gun control).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Andrew D. Todd, 28 Jul 2016 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

        Well, the electorate for the President (who can veto a law) is not quite the same as the electorate for the Senate, which, in turn, is not precisely the same as the electorate for the House of Representatives, which is not the same as the selection procedure for the Supreme Court (which can find a law unconstitutional). You have a requirement for four different kinds of majority, under different rules, and eighty percent of the underlying public is about right. If you want to be more precise, you could build a computer simulation model.

        To take gun control, there are whole regions of the country whre having a gun is normal, where taxicab drivers and shopkeepers talk about getting their annual deer. You might get 90% for gun control in Berkeley, California, but that is not typical of the country as a whole. If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee. Sucessful legislation is usually based around finding a compromise.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 1:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

          You have a requirement for four different kinds of majority, under different rules, and eighty percent of the underlying public is about right.

          I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To "do anything", by which I assume you mean pass something into law, you need greater than 50% support in the Senate and House, and the President. The public has no say. So where does this 80% come from, or are you talking about something totally unrelated?

          If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee.

          There are gun control measures, such as universal background checks, that are favored by a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of gun owners. Yet they cannot get through Congress. If Congress only cared about representing their constituents, this would not happen. Gun control is just one example, there are others where Congress will not act despite the will of the people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The Wanderer (profile), 29 Jul 2016 @ 7:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

            I think he's saying that in order to have sufficient majorities for an issue in a sufficient mix of the Senate, the House, the Presidency (by way of the Presidential electorate), and the Supreme Court, the percentage of the total population which you need to have support that issue is probably around 80%.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 29 Jul 2016 @ 8:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hillary Is A Lot Smarter Than That.

              That still sounds unlikely. Did the ACA have 80% public support? I don't think it was even 50%. SOPA would have passed in the complete absence of any public support at all. It was only massive public outcry that defeated it. Saying that issues with around 80% public support get passed and those without don't is an oversimplification at best, and flat out wrong at worst.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    andrew longprong, 28 Jul 2016 @ 7:46pm

    Their reign of terror is over.

    Crooked Traitorous Hitlery Clinton is never going to be President and in 2017 Crooked Hitlery, Mentally Insane, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Powers, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Barrack Osama as well as many other Criminally Traitorous treasonous war mongering murdering parasites in Washington as well as Congress responsible for destabilizing other countries and murdering millions of people in Will be prosecuted for their Crimes and Will Spend the rest of their life in Prison, Make no mistakes about it, its going to happen , they know it and they dread it and as soon as the American people understand it, more power to you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 28 Jul 2016 @ 8:08pm

      Re: Their reign of terror is over.

      The problem with voting against Hillary is voting in Trump. And the problem with voting against Trump is voting in Hillary.

      Trump is the one that's planning on forcing the inner city to the work farms to do all the jobs that illegals are doing right now.

      Or he may just force our prison population to do all that work for free and put our inner city kids straight from adolescence into prison.

      We do that a lot already.

      The steps to a holocaust are small and the gradient shallow. What frightens me is how little trump supporters care for Trump's policies. This isn't a send-a-message-to Washington vote. This is the guy in charge for at least four years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    speedy gonzalas, 28 Jul 2016 @ 8:05pm

    No ones listening.

    America is now a country of liars and cowards, retard and mentally ill individuals ,welfare recipient, bums and nobodies of importance with a lack of a real education and the mentality of a stone vomit dribble and the corporate presstitute media reports it. Washington has Failed, The Presstitute Media has Failed, Their Shills have Failed, Their Propaganda has Failed, their agenda has failed, no one believes a word they say and no one watches or listens to their lies. All they have left is themselves,a small group of cowards who understand no one listens or views their lies and all they do is compete in a BS competition between themselves and in the end all they have done is paint a giant target on their back.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.