Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama administration blocks release of Clinton TPP emails

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Just as an example of the possible material that may be found in Hillary's TTP emails is the material that was already disclosed regarding the her lobbying efforts on behalf of the Colombian free trade deal which she had claimed she opposed.
    During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia.” She later declared, “I oppose the deal. I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.”
    But newly released emails show that as secretary of state, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal, even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.

    One of the 2011 emails from Clinton to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Clinton aide Robert Hormats has a subject line “Sandy Levin” — a reference to the Democratic congressman who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees U.S. trade policy. In the email detailing her call with Levin, she said the Michigan lawmaker “appreciates the changes that have been made, the national security arguments and Santos's reforms” -- the latter presumably a reference to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. She concludes the message about the call with Levin by saying, “I told him that at the rate we were going, Columbian [sic] workers were going to end up w the same or better rights than workers in Wisconsin and Indiana and, maybe even, Michigan.”
    Froman — a former Citigroup executive who as trade representative was lobbying for passage of the deal — responded by thanking Clinton for her "help and support.” Hormats, a former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton at the State Department, later chimed in, telling her “terrific job” and “GREAT line on Columbian [sic] workers!!!!!”
    http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clint...l-dump-2326068

    So what caused her change in position? Was it really about a sudden belief that Colombian workers would enjoy improved conditions? Not really, as even at the time of the trade discussions the then Colombian government was employing the military to round up striking workers. So what caused the change in her position - money, specifically donations made to the Clinton Foundation.
    as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.
    The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.
    http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil...-labor-1874464

    More on the relationship between the Clintons and Guistra can be found in the following article, including Bill's frequent use of Guistra's private aircraft.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...503-story.html

    Comment


    • #17
      Okay, let's leave out who you are against for a moment --

      I'm asking the Democrats here; how can you be for Hillary at this point, knowing all this?
      It just won't compute ...
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • #18
        My worst jump story:
        My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
        As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
        No lie.

        ~
        "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
        -2 Commando Jumpmaster

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
          I wonder how many drinks each of them needed before they would agree to touch each other.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
            Don't expect them to be ever released if she wins in November...
            I would just about bet my life on that!
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
              “This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout.

              http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ion-in-history
              Ah, wasn't that one of the most hilarious of his statements? The sad truth is that so many people still believe it, too. Repeat a lie often enough...

              That Obama has run one of the most opaque and inscrutable administrations in modern history - and that's saying something, considering he is following Bush and the Cheney dream-team - will always be one of those darkly humorous little tidbits that will interest historians and political scientists but not get much interest from the general public.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                Okay, let's leave out who you are against for a moment --

                I'm asking the Democrats here; how can you be for Hillary at this point, knowing all this?
                It just won't compute ...
                It's the lesser of two evils mentality that dominates American elections. We don't vote for who we like - we vote for who we hate and fear less.

                And we then sit around looking at the failure we put into office and say "how do we keep electing such terrible people?" without a trace of irony.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  It's the lesser of two evils mentality that dominates American elections. We don't vote for who we like - we vote for who we hate and fear less.

                  And we then sit around looking at the failure we put into office and say "how do we keep electing such terrible people?" without a trace of irony.
                  And it is so WRONG it makes me want to scream!

                  And BTW- a vote for a 3rd Party isn't a vote for one of the others, its a vote for whoever you pulled the trigger on, period. The idea that you are voting for the guy you hate by voting for an independent is garbage made up by whoever is trying to pressure you into voting for them. Period.

                  So, the only justification for Voting for Hilary is to vote against Trump, and that's it, eh?
                  ain't much of a reason to make a special trip in the middle of a workday, is it?
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    And it is so WRONG it makes me want to scream!

                    And BTW- a vote for a 3rd Party isn't a vote for one of the others, its a vote for whoever you pulled the trigger on, period. The idea that you are voting for the guy you hate by voting for an independent is garbage made up by whoever is trying to pressure you into voting for them. Period.

                    So, the only justification for Voting for Hilary is to vote against Trump, and that's it, eh?
                    ain't much of a reason to make a special trip in the middle of a workday, is it?
                    Good luck changing it though. The parties like everyone hating the other side, because the more you fear Hillary or Trump or Obama or Bush, the less likely you are to want to improve the system.

                    Those who are the most opposed to one side or the other are those most likely to sustain that "lesser evil" status quo - and they're (ironically) quite likely to complain about the sad state of affairs, even while proudly announcing they're motivated to vote because "at least he's better than the other guy".

                    The parties want angry partisanship. They want you to see them as radically different rather than two shades of the same color. And the people will go with it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                      I wonder how many drinks each of them needed before they would agree to touch each other.
                      The photographer made a $100,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation for the right to take that picture...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        And it is so WRONG it makes me want to scream!

                        And BTW- a vote for a 3rd Party isn't a vote for one of the others, its a vote for whoever you pulled the trigger on, period. The idea that you are voting for the guy you hate by voting for an independent is garbage made up by whoever is trying to pressure you into voting for them. Period.
                        This is true only if the vote is going to be close. If it isn't, then a third party vote doesn't matter in terms of who is going to get elected.

                        So, the only justification for Voting for Hilary is to vote against Trump, and that's it, eh?
                        ain't much of a reason to make a special trip in the middle of a workday, is it?
                        But who can justify a vote for the Hildabeast? Would you vote for mafia boss John Gotti or for Richard Nixon? That's who you're really voting for if you vote for Hillary.
                        As vile as Trump is, he isn't an out-and-out criminal. Hillary is.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          This is true only if the vote is going to be close. If it isn't, then a third party vote doesn't matter in terms of who is going to get elected.
                          If the election isn't close than any single vote doesn't matter. In fact, I can confidently declare that the outcome of this election will be unaffected by any voting decision you make: whether you vote Dem, GOP, or 3rd party, your vote won't change anything. Voting for Trump is the same as staying home and not voting at all... unless you start talking about large numbers of voters rather than the individual.

                          And then voting trends do play an important role. Look at the Libertarians and their desperate attempts to get 15% so they will get invited to the national debates. If you are a libertarian, than knowing you won't win this single election isn't really important: it's about trying to grow the brand and attract in more voters by presenting the libertarians as a viable option. And having more support attracts more support.

                          So even as a group their collective "wasted" votes are still playing a part in helping the party they voted for, even if someone wants to claim that those votes helped Hillary or Trump more. Individually it's as worthless as any other single vote, but if it helps convince someone else to vote that way next election, then one can still say they were supporting their party towards a possible future win.

                          tl;dr Whether a vote matters or who it counts for depends entirely on how one judges worth through their own model.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                            If the election isn't close than any single vote doesn't matter. In fact, I can confidently declare that the outcome of this election will be unaffected by any voting decision you make: whether you vote Dem, GOP, or 3rd party, your vote won't change anything. Voting for Trump is the same as staying home and not voting at all... unless you start talking about large numbers of voters rather than the individual.

                            And then voting trends do play an important role. Look at the Libertarians and their desperate attempts to get 15% so they will get invited to the national debates. If you are a libertarian, than knowing you won't win this single election isn't really important: it's about trying to grow the brand and attract in more voters by presenting the libertarians as a viable option. And having more support attracts more support.

                            So even as a group their collective "wasted" votes are still playing a part in helping the party they voted for, even if someone wants to claim that those votes helped Hillary or Trump more. Individually it's as worthless as any other single vote, but if it helps convince someone else to vote that way next election, then one can still say they were supporting their party towards a possible future win.

                            tl;dr Whether a vote matters or who it counts for depends entirely on how one judges worth through their own model.
                            All of that depends on the state you live in. In some states, no, it won't make an iota of difference either because that state has no real electoral college significance, or because the outcome will be heavily one-sided. In others, it very well might. It's those states you can expect to see all sorts of cheating going on... and I'll add... most of it by Democrats.

                            So, in my state, Arizona, it's likely I can vote for a third party candidate and confidently know that Hillary will still lose the state.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X