with Hillary running TPP is far from dead. If she win's its very much alive and very much being signed in to law. She can claim to be against it but she helped right it and called it the gold standard like she supported NAFTA.
Trump vs. Clinton III - TPP looks dead, RussiaLeaks confirmed
Expect an outbreak of denials from whoever's got the credentials to @Wikileaks at the moment: Hillary Clinton has said no fewer than 17 civilian and government intelligence agencies point the finger to Kremlin interference in the election. Clinton used that number during today's third debate between herself and rival United …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 03:41 GMT Mark Cathcart
"right it" it was falling over?
It's a pretty poor misunderstanding of how these things get written if you think Clinton actually helped write TPP. She may have given general direction;she may well have help overall objectives, but the idea that Clinton edited text using, no doubt, one of her many blackberry phones, is laughable.
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 07:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
The president can't unilaterally agree to such treaties. Congress has to approve it first, and since most democrats oppose it (and all such trade deals - look at how few democrats supported NAFTA versus the near universal republican support when congress passed it) there would need to be significant republican support. That seems unlikely given that any republican who votes for it would be in immediate danger of losing a primary challenge to a Trump follower in the next election.
Pretty sure TPP is dead even if Hillary flip flops once she's in office.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 11:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: We need a third option on ballot papers
And, more over, anyone in a voting booth, as if they've not seen through the utter BS lies that it claims, they have proven themselves not worthy to have an opinion as they can't research anything. http://www.realityinfo.org/news/?p=165 http://www.realityinfo.org/news/?p=170
-
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 06:20 GMT pauleverett
>RussiLeaks confirmed
by?
"no fewer than 17 civilian and government intelligence agencies"
The problem I have with both of these statements, is that I seriously doubt the honesty, and reputation of any US government intelligence agency. They have proven over, and over, that they are quite content to make shit up, as they go along, to serve their purpose. Their track record is awful shity, and I don't trust much of what they say anymore.
so where are we?
russians in denial.
yanks probably just inventing snug fitting stories.
it all sounds a bit too politically perfect to have the Russians take some election interference heat right now. it fits someones agenda too comfortably for my liking.
Maybe nobody knows who really made those leaks, which sounds bad.. Frankly.... why should anyone care? its diverting from the content of the leaks, which seems to me to be the usual political process of distraction.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 08:31 GMT lukewarmdog
“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” - Poe
Still, even if you discount all the government agencies, the civilian ones are saying it's Russia. And as the government ones are also saying it's Russia.. maybe don't discount the combined conclusion that it was Russia. There's a tinfoil hat with "it's not Russia" on it on the table over there next to the "who's agenda is it anyway" board game. It's the Middle East version in case you wondered.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 23:25 GMT frobnicate
the civilian ones are saying it's Russia
The civilian agencies got access to the presumed secret evidence that the government used to place the blame? Or they just happily echo-chambering each other, 17 or more times?
The only bit of concrete technical information I was able to find in all the reports was that the source IP was in Russia. Yeah, the chain of VPNs used for attack had last hop from Moscow, so what?
-
-
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 07:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Trump should not be on the ballot paper
Accepting the result of an election is a fundamental tenet of Democracy. His refusal to accept the result is IMHO, a clear sign that he wants to get into the White House by fair means or foul.
What is his plan 'B' if the vote goes againast him?
Does he want to mobilise the southern militia and march on DC?
Will he take Hillary to court to stop her being confirmed as El Pres?
Naturally, he is keeping his cards close to his chest but it will be interesting to watch the Disunited States of America unravel no matter who gets elected.
Putin will have ordered extra caviar and Vodka for when he settles down to watch the results come in. Whoever wins will be a great opportunity for him to extend his sphere of influence.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 08:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Trump should not be on the ballot paper
What is his plan 'B' if the vote goes against him?
I don't think paying his debts will be amongst it because he'll now blame Hillary and probably the Republicans for damage to his "brand". He may even go as far as suing them, which would IMHO be incredibly fun to watch play out in court and would probably the only entertainment involving Trump I might pay for.
His presidential bid and appearances are indeed already having quite an effect, but not the one he hoped for. Attendance in Trump hotels is apparently dropping quicker than his ratings after, er, "Pussygate"..
-
-
Friday 21st October 2016 07:30 GMT StuartDavid
Re: Trump should not be on the ballot paper
Absolutely. Every time he says something, his minders have to run around afterwards saying that what he really meant was the opposite!
I think both / all parties are going to severely rethink their candidate nomination / selection procedure for the future. That is, if GOP got a future.
They don't deserve one.
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 15:38 GMT Florida1920
Re: Trump should not be on the ballot paper
What is his plan 'B' if the vote goes againast him?
I'd bet lunch at your favorite pub that the first act of Congress after Clinton is elected will be to initiate impeachment proceedings. And DT will be screaming for it from the rooftops. Unfortunately, they and he may have a case.
-
Friday 21st October 2016 18:35 GMT TAJW
Re: Trump should not be on the ballot paper
Yes, accepting the result of an election is a fundamental tenet of Democracy.
But when a potential candidate calls you "Deplorable", unAmerican and "Irredeemable", while her surrogates refer to you as "Mentally Deficient", "Terrorists", "Extortionists", "Saboteurs", "Anarchists", "Squealing Political Pigs", "Arsonists" and "Murderers", I feel no loyalty to them as they have no respect for me. As a Veteran, who served his country, a patriot who has believed in his country, I am shamed and disgusted by Hillary Clinton. Her antics with the personal email server and treating classified material so cavalierly, destroying data after a Congressional subpoena demanded it, complete disregard for those working people who protected her and served America cause me to have no respect for her.
No, I'm sorry. I do not have nor will ever have any respect for Hillary Clinton, and if she is elected, I'm sure she will ignore the law, just as Barack Obama has, despite them taking an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and faithfully execute the Office of President. As President, Obama's primary job is to enforce the law, yet he has chosen to only enforce those he wanted to, not what was put in place by those elected to do so. He also attempted to rewrite laws with Executive Orders, and I fully expect Clinton to do the same.
And yet, we are expected to support her. She doesn't respect us, demeans us, ignores our wishes as voters and citizens, yet she desires our support.
No ... not from me.
And if you don't like that, tough.
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 09:08 GMT Destroy All Monsters
"17 civilian and government intelligence agencies"
Just create another 2 government intelligence agencies and a private but federally funded think-tank for additional pointing, so as to make this a round number.
Meanwhile, The Warnings of a New World War: The U.S.-Russia confrontation over Ukraine and now Syria is far more dangerous than is understood by mainstream U.S. analysts as Russia lays down clear warnings that are mostly being ignored, writes Gilbert Doctorow.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 09:25 GMT Simon 4
South Park nails it
Out of more than 300 million people, the choice for President is between a giant douche or a turd sandwich?
Hillary is a crook and a liar. Stories from Wikileaks every day about how awful she is. The Clinton Foundation is the largest political slush fund in history that is wide out in the open and even celebrated by the establishment!
The Clintons stole billions from Haiti, took hundreds of millions, if not billions for access from all sorts of dodgy regimes. Anyone here ever received a $1 million birthday present? And with absolutely no expectation from the giver for anything in return?
And Trump can't even land these punches. He's a bully. He has regard for the constitution on some issues and complete disregard with others.
But at least Trump acknowledges the constitution. And he's the one candidate out of these two who HASN'T been secretly supporting ISIS in Syria.
The media across the pond devote 10 or 20 times as much airtime and newsprint to Trump gaffes and stupidity as they do to the criminal enterprise that is the Clinton family.
I would vote for Thomas Jefferson.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 09:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: South Park nails it
Its like having a choice between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon.
Both fishy as hell, and you wonder where honest men and women went.
Then you look at how the leadership in all three UK parties is being manipulated to ensure the right puppets are in control, and you get very afraid.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 12:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: South Park nails it
Strange. I see Wikileaks confirming that she's a politician, with many of the failings being a politician implies. No different from the politicians you support. Trump however seems incapable of even pretending to be one or climb up to the moral level of the worst of them.
It might seem a great idea putting a buffoon in place, guaranteeing smaller gov as every move is blocked. But I thought you wanted lots of Obama's work undone so why send an impotent blowhard?
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 13:32 GMT WalterAlter
Re: South Park nails it
Yah, sure, destroys 30k emails that were under subpoena verified by email leaks confirming she had direct knowledge and culpability. Business as usual for politicians in your world, eh?. Just pretend the O'Keefe videos don't exist. You know, the ones showing admissions on camera of a Democrat consulting firm that paid provocateurs to disrupt Trump rallies and a tutorial on how to cheat an election. The guy in the video fired next day. The guy in the video visiting the White House over 200 times and the President over 40 times. That video. What, didn't know about that video? The one that got 2.600,000 views the first 24 hours it was up. That video.
Yah, I made it all up.
-
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 10:10 GMT disgruntled yank
confirmation or not
Clinton appeared to say that she was quoted out of context. I understand that as confirmation that Wikileaks quoted her correctly, if perhaps incompletely.
The notion of a previous poster that the Republican Party is down on TPP has its weaknesses. Over the last fifty years, at least, the Republican Party has tended to favor lowering restrictions to trade. (Which, now I think of it, may reflect the movement of its center of gravity from Midwest to South.) Now, over the last twenty years it has preferred to regard the initiatives of Democratic presidents as the work of Satan, so that could weaken its support for TPP.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 10:14 GMT disgruntled yank
confirmation or not
Clinton appeared to say that she was quoted out of context. I understand that as confirmation that Wikileaks quoted her correctly, if perhaps incompletely.
The notion of a previous poster that the Republican Party is down on TPP has its weaknesses. Over the last fifty years, at least, the Republican Party has tended to favor lowering restrictions to trade. (Which, now I think of it, may reflect the movement of its center of gravity from Midwest to South.) Now, over the last twenty years it has preferred to regard the initiatives of Democratic presidents as the work of Satan, so that could weaken its support for TPP.
I do not say that Russia is feeding Wikileaks, though it may be. Still, I suspect that Putin favors Trump. If you were playing poker for real money, which candidate would you prefer as opponent? It seems to me that once you got used to Trump's tendency to throw down large bets on a pair of twos, he would be the more profitable.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 10:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Admission by distraction
#Clinton once again confirmed the authenticity of our documents with her response to #WikiLeaks question. https://t.co/pjX9tmfINt #debate
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016
WikiLeaks didn't say how she confirmed that. Perhaps Clinton pointing to Russia's involvement in obtaining and releasing them was all the proof WikiLeaks needed?
I think that's exactly the proof. Russia couldn't "obtain and release them" unless they were, in fact, genuine.
She didn't deny their authenticity, didn't say that Russia made it up. By her own words, it was a "cyber-attack", not a "fabrication".
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 14:16 GMT Steve the Cynic
My first thought...
" no fewer than 17 civilian and government intelligence agencies point the finger to Kremlin interference in the election"
When I read this, my first thought was that Senator Johnny Iselin had a list of 57 known communists in the State Department. Make of that what you will.
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 14:49 GMT Androgynous Cow Herd
Simple question for US voters
Is there anyone yet who has not made up thier mind? Anyone who is watching this Klown Kollege of a election that is still undecided? The US political system has turned into a media event to sell air time to Rogaine. It seems to me that must be why the Republicans really put a Reality TV star at the top of thier ticket...for the ratings
-
-
Thursday 20th October 2016 22:15 GMT James O'Shea
"Why do we have 17 intelligence agencies? I find that in itself kind of alarming."
There are 17 agencies 'cause everyone has to have their own take on things.
CIA: umbrella for foreign intel
DIA: umbrella for foreign _military_ intel
FBI: among other things, umbrella for local, in the US, counterintel
Bureau of Intelligence and Research: US State Department's very own foreign intel
Office of Naval Intelligence: US Navy's very own foreign military intel
US Army Intelligence and Security Command: US Army's very own foreign military intel _and_ local, in the US, counterintel
US Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency: US Air Force's very own intel
National Reconnaissance Office: satelitte pix and stuff
NSA: sigint
United States Secret Service: among other things, foreign and local economics intel (Treasury Dept...)
That's ten. I know that I'm leaving out at least three more. I see no reason why there couldn't be _more_ than 17 intelligence agencies.