Bad news, this coughing fit sure doesn't help dispel the rumors about her health.

The reason a lot of Bernie fans like myself didn't want Clinton as the nominee is because she is such a flawed candidate. I wish all Americans had better options than Clinton v Trump.

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:P Diddy--saying exactly what Im saying--and its common sense.

Diddy, who just opened a charter school in Harlem, apparently isn’t buying Clinton’s wide lead among African-Americans over GOP opponent Donald Trump. Clinton’s spent many Sundays visiting black churches and made gun violence and police shootings a platform of her campaign through talks with African-American mothers whose children were killed.

“Hillary Clinton, you know, I hope she starts to directly talk to the black community. … It really makes me feel, you know, almost hurt that our issues are not addressed and we’re such a big part of the voting bloc.”

Diddy, an Obama supporter who also donated money to Clinton’s New York Senate race, said it’s time for black voters to get something in return for their political support.

“The heat has to be turned up so much that as a community, we got to hold our vote,” Diddy said. “Don’t pacify yourself, really revolutionize the game. Make them come for our vote. It’s a whole different strategy, but I think we need to hold our vote because I don’t believe any of them.”

1. P diddy did not endorse Trump.
2. P diddy is not the leader of black americans.

He is not happy with either, but he is not calling for Trump. He is calling for the black community to galvanize an use the vote as leverage. A promise can be earn an endorsement. P diddy is not really giving details other than offering his frustration.

PDiddy is probably not happy he didn't get the love from Obama Jay-Z got, even after Diddy's Vote or Die drive for Obama...Bill Maher wanted more love too...

Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/young-blacks-voice-skepticism-on-hillary-clinton-worrying-democrats.html?ref=politics&referer=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/briefing/president-obama-angela-merkel-iphone.html

Brittany Packnett, 31, a St. Louis-based activist, said young black voters wanted more than “a candidate who is better than the alternative.”

WHITNEY CURTIS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JONATHAN MARTIN
SEPTEMBER 4, 2016

WASHINGTON — When a handful of liberal advocacy organizations convened a series of focus groups with young black voters last month, the assessments of Donald J. Trump were predictably unsparing.

But when the participants were asked about Hillary Clinton, their appraisals were just as blunt and nearly as biting.

“What am I supposed to do if I don’t like him and I don’t trust her?” a millennial black woman in Ohio asked. “Choose between being stabbed and being shot? No way!”

“She was part of the whole problem that started sending blacks to jail,” a young black man, also from Ohio, observed about Mrs. Clinton.

“He’s a racist, and she is a liar, so really what’s the difference in choosing both or choosing neither?” another young black woman from Ohio said.

Document | Results of Obama Voter Focus Groups on Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton’s difficulties with young African-Americans were laid bare in four damning focus groups conducted for a handful of progressive organizations. The results were outlined in a presentation by a Democratic pollster, and shared with The Times by another party strategist who wanted to draw attention to Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties in hopes that the campaign would move more aggressively to address the matter.
Young African-Americans, like all voters their age, are typically far harder to drive to the polls than middle-aged and older Americans. Yet with just over two months until Election Day, many Democrats are expressing alarm at the lack of enthusiasm, and in some cases outright resistance, some black millennials feel toward Mrs. Clinton.

Their skepticism is rooted in a deep discomfort with the political establishment that they believe the 68-year-old former first lady and secretary of state represents. They share a lingering mistrust of Mrs. Clinton and her husband over criminal justice issues. They are demanding more from politicians as part of a new, confrontational wave of black activism that has arisen in response to police killings of unarmed African-Americans.

“We’re in the midst of a movement with a real sense of urgency,” explained Brittany Packnett, 31, a St. Louis-based leader in the push for police accountability. Mrs. Clinton is not yet connecting, she said, “because the conversation that younger black voters are having is no longer one about settling on a candidate who is better than the alternative.”

The question of just how many young African-Americans will show up to vote carries profound implications for this election. Mrs. Clinton is sure to dominate Mr. Trump among black voters, but her overwhelming margin could ultimately matter less than the total number of blacks who show up to vote.

To replicate President Obama’s success in crucial states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she cannot afford to let the percentage of the electorate that is black slip far below what it was in 2012. And while a modest drop-off of black votes may not imperil Mrs. Clinton’s prospects, given Mr. Trump’s unpopularity among upscale white voters, it could undermine Democrats’ effort to capture control of the Senate and win other down-ballot elections.

Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties with young African-Americans were laid bare in four focus groups conducted in Cleveland and Jacksonville, Fla., for a handful of progressive organizations spending millions on the election: the service employees union, a joint “super PAC” between organized labor and the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and a progressive group called Project New America. The results were outlined in a 25-page presentation by Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster, and shared with The New York Times by another party strategist who wanted to draw attention to Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties in hopes that the campaign would move more aggressively to address the matter.

Chris Prudhome, the president of Vote America Now, a non-partisan group working to register millennial and minority voters, in Washington on Friday.
JUSTIN T. GELLERSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
Word of the report has spread in the constellation of liberal operatives and advocacy groups in recent weeks, concerning officials who saw diminished black turnout hurt Democratic candidates in the last two midterm elections.

Adding to the worries is a separate poll of African-Americans that Mr. Belcher conducted earlier in the summer indicating that Mrs. Clinton is lagging well behind Mr. Obama’s performance among young blacks in a handful of crucial states.

In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, 70 percent of African-Americans under 35 said they were backing Mrs. Clinton, 8 percent indicated support for Mr. Trump and 18 percent said they were backing another candidate or did not know whom they would support. In 2012, Mr. Obama won 92 percent of black voters under 45 nationally, according to exit polling.

Over 25 percent of African-Americans are between 18 and 34, and 44 percent are older than 35, according to 2013 census data.

“There is no Democratic majority without these voters,” Mr. Belcher said. “The danger is that if you don’t get these voters out, you’ve got the 2004 John Kerry electorate again.”

In Ohio, for example, blacks were 10 percent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential race. But when Mr. Obama ran for re-election in 2012, that number jumped to 15 percent.

Interactive Feature | Who Will Be President? The Upshot’s presidential forecast, updated daily.
What frustrates many blacks under 40 is Mrs. Clinton’s overriding focus on Mr. Trump.

“We already know what the deal is with Trump,” said Nathan Baskerville, a 35-year-old North Carolina state representative. “Tell us what your plan is to make our life better.”

Such talk can be frustrating to Mrs. Clinton’s aides, who point out that her first speech of the campaign was on criminal justice and that she has laid out a series of proposals on the topic.

“It is on us to make sure that that’s known,” said Addisu Demissie, Mrs. Clinton’s voter outreach and mobilization director, adding of young black activists, “We share their goals, we share their values and we want to make sure that’s reflected through our campaign.”

The focus groups and interviews with young black activists suggest many of them are not aware of Mrs. Clinton’s plans regarding police conduct, mass incarceration and structural racism broadly.

Christopher Prudhome, 31, recounted a recurring conversation he has with other African-Americans as he travels around the country as the head of a nonpartisan group dedicated to registering young voters: They do not like either candidate.

“Young people feel discouraged and apprehensive about the political process as is, and then they look at the two options in front of us,” said Mr. Prudhome, adding of Mrs. Clinton: “Nobody has seen an agenda for African-American millennials. I don’t think they believe she cares about them.”

Part of Mrs. Clinton’s problem, said Symone Sanders, a former top aide to Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign, is that the candidate is overly cautious and is conducting an outdated style of black outreach.

Ms. Sanders has begun taking matters into her own hands. She said she was working with other young activists to recruit black celebrities for a millennial mobilization tour through Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.

“Black churches and an H.B.C.U. tour is just not going to cut it in 2016,” said Ms. Sanders, referring to historically black colleges and universities. “The Clinton campaign has to be willing to get out of what’s comfortable and get on the streets.”

Mr. Demissie said the Clinton campaign’s efforts were more expansive, pointing to voter registration efforts already underway in barbershops and salons as well as sneaker and video game stores.

Mrs. Clinton has met with mothers of those who lost children at the hands of the police and has used the signature refrain that “black lives matter” in public remarks. But she and her husband also come from an earlier political tradition rooted in the Deep South, where black voters are primarily reached through the church and the threat of white conservative backlash is never far from mind.

Today’s young African-American voters are less likely to be found in black churches and more likely to be found in schools, loosely organized activist groups and online, said Ms. Packnett, the St. Louis activist.

Slide Show | On the Trail: Week of Aug. 28 In the final week of August, Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Mexico, and Hillary Clinton continued to raise funds.
And the leaders are more diverse. “It’s not just heterosexual men,” she noted.

Not only are younger black activists reached in different ways, they also have far higher expectations on leaders, dismissing boilerplate pleas for racial equality and justice as insufficient.

“Gone is the day of patience,” said Tony J. Payton Jr., 35, a former Pennsylvania state representative. “No longer should we accept systemic racism.”

Doubts about how aggressively Mrs. Clinton will move to combat racism are at the heart of black suspicion toward her. Some African-Americans said her 1996 reference to some young criminals as “super-predators,” and the legislation that President Bill Clinton signed imposing stiff sentences on nonviolent offenders, have made today’s activists skeptical about her true intentions.

“That stuff comes up unprompted,” Mr. Belcher said.

Mr. Trump has turned to remarkably blunt language about blacks in recent weeks — portraying their communities as dystopian hellscapes and asking them, in courting their support, “What do you have to lose?” Some African-American allies of Mrs. Clinton believe he is serving as her most effective get-out-the-vote lever.

“He is literally saying something every day that is disrespectful to the black community,” said Michael Blake, a New York State assemblyman from the Bronx who worked on Mr. Obama’s campaigns and is close to many Clinton aides.

Yet when African-American voters in the focus groups were shown campaign fliers and asked to rate them, there was no mistaking what was most effective.

A pamphlet with a picture of Mr. Trump that read, “We have to beat the racists,” fell flat with young black audiences.

Scoring much higher were a stark black and white handout showing the names of those killed at the hands of the police and another with images of mothers of the victims that said, “Their Children Can’t Vote, Will You?”

Yet Hillary didn't know was the HUGE "C" in the middle of all her classified emails meant after years in office and as Sec of State. Either complete incompetence or habitual liar. Not what you want from your commander in chief.

Also I hope she is in ok health. She isn't or wasn't a smoker but the coughing, her lungs and lack of stamina are a bit concerning

gunsnewing wrote:Remember when Hillary criticized Trump for not knowing what the Nuclear Triad was during a GOP debate? He clearly knew but wasn't familiar with the Washington lingo.

Yet Hillary didn't know was the HUGE "C" in the middle of all her classified emails meant after years in office and as Sec of State. Either complete incompetence or habitual liar. Not what you want from your commander in chief.

Also I hope she is in ok health. She isn't or wasn't a smoker but the coughing, her lungs and lack of stamina are a bit concerning

DrAlphaeus wrote:Interesting points about Diddy's Vote or Die campaign. Saw this article that talks about young African-Americans not satisfied with either choice:

Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/young-blacks-voice-skepticism-on-hillary-clinton-worrying-democrats.html?ref=politics&referer=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/briefing/president-obama-angela-merkel-iphone.html

Brittany Packnett, 31, a St. Louis-based activist, said young black voters wanted more than “a candidate who is better than the alternative.”

WHITNEY CURTIS FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JONATHAN MARTIN
SEPTEMBER 4, 2016

WASHINGTON — When a handful of liberal advocacy organizations convened a series of focus groups with young black voters last month, the assessments of Donald J. Trump were predictably unsparing.

But when the participants were asked about Hillary Clinton, their appraisals were just as blunt and nearly as biting.

“What am I supposed to do if I don’t like him and I don’t trust her?” a millennial black woman in Ohio asked. “Choose between being stabbed and being shot? No way!”

“She was part of the whole problem that started sending blacks to jail,” a young black man, also from Ohio, observed about Mrs. Clinton.

“He’s a racist, and she is a liar, so really what’s the difference in choosing both or choosing neither?” another young black woman from Ohio said.

Document | Results of Obama Voter Focus Groups on Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton’s difficulties with young African-Americans were laid bare in four damning focus groups conducted for a handful of progressive organizations. The results were outlined in a presentation by a Democratic pollster, and shared with The Times by another party strategist who wanted to draw attention to Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties in hopes that the campaign would move more aggressively to address the matter.
Young African-Americans, like all voters their age, are typically far harder to drive to the polls than middle-aged and older Americans. Yet with just over two months until Election Day, many Democrats are expressing alarm at the lack of enthusiasm, and in some cases outright resistance, some black millennials feel toward Mrs. Clinton.

Their skepticism is rooted in a deep discomfort with the political establishment that they believe the 68-year-old former first lady and secretary of state represents. They share a lingering mistrust of Mrs. Clinton and her husband over criminal justice issues. They are demanding more from politicians as part of a new, confrontational wave of black activism that has arisen in response to police killings of unarmed African-Americans.

“We’re in the midst of a movement with a real sense of urgency,” explained Brittany Packnett, 31, a St. Louis-based leader in the push for police accountability. Mrs. Clinton is not yet connecting, she said, “because the conversation that younger black voters are having is no longer one about settling on a candidate who is better than the alternative.”

The question of just how many young African-Americans will show up to vote carries profound implications for this election. Mrs. Clinton is sure to dominate Mr. Trump among black voters, but her overwhelming margin could ultimately matter less than the total number of blacks who show up to vote.

To replicate President Obama’s success in crucial states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she cannot afford to let the percentage of the electorate that is black slip far below what it was in 2012. And while a modest drop-off of black votes may not imperil Mrs. Clinton’s prospects, given Mr. Trump’s unpopularity among upscale white voters, it could undermine Democrats’ effort to capture control of the Senate and win other down-ballot elections.

Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties with young African-Americans were laid bare in four focus groups conducted in Cleveland and Jacksonville, Fla., for a handful of progressive organizations spending millions on the election: the service employees union, a joint “super PAC” between organized labor and the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, and a progressive group called Project New America. The results were outlined in a 25-page presentation by Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster, and shared with The New York Times by another party strategist who wanted to draw attention to Mrs. Clinton’s difficulties in hopes that the campaign would move more aggressively to address the matter.

Chris Prudhome, the president of Vote America Now, a non-partisan group working to register millennial and minority voters, in Washington on Friday.
JUSTIN T. GELLERSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
Word of the report has spread in the constellation of liberal operatives and advocacy groups in recent weeks, concerning officials who saw diminished black turnout hurt Democratic candidates in the last two midterm elections.

Adding to the worries is a separate poll of African-Americans that Mr. Belcher conducted earlier in the summer indicating that Mrs. Clinton is lagging well behind Mr. Obama’s performance among young blacks in a handful of crucial states.

In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, 70 percent of African-Americans under 35 said they were backing Mrs. Clinton, 8 percent indicated support for Mr. Trump and 18 percent said they were backing another candidate or did not know whom they would support. In 2012, Mr. Obama won 92 percent of black voters under 45 nationally, according to exit polling.

Over 25 percent of African-Americans are between 18 and 34, and 44 percent are older than 35, according to 2013 census data.

“There is no Democratic majority without these voters,” Mr. Belcher said. “The danger is that if you don’t get these voters out, you’ve got the 2004 John Kerry electorate again.”

In Ohio, for example, blacks were 10 percent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential race. But when Mr. Obama ran for re-election in 2012, that number jumped to 15 percent.

Interactive Feature | Who Will Be President? The Upshot’s presidential forecast, updated daily.
What frustrates many blacks under 40 is Mrs. Clinton’s overriding focus on Mr. Trump.

“We already know what the deal is with Trump,” said Nathan Baskerville, a 35-year-old North Carolina state representative. “Tell us what your plan is to make our life better.”

Such talk can be frustrating to Mrs. Clinton’s aides, who point out that her first speech of the campaign was on criminal justice and that she has laid out a series of proposals on the topic.

“It is on us to make sure that that’s known,” said Addisu Demissie, Mrs. Clinton’s voter outreach and mobilization director, adding of young black activists, “We share their goals, we share their values and we want to make sure that’s reflected through our campaign.”

The focus groups and interviews with young black activists suggest many of them are not aware of Mrs. Clinton’s plans regarding police conduct, mass incarceration and structural racism broadly.

Christopher Prudhome, 31, recounted a recurring conversation he has with other African-Americans as he travels around the country as the head of a nonpartisan group dedicated to registering young voters: They do not like either candidate.

“Young people feel discouraged and apprehensive about the political process as is, and then they look at the two options in front of us,” said Mr. Prudhome, adding of Mrs. Clinton: “Nobody has seen an agenda for African-American millennials. I don’t think they believe she cares about them.”

Part of Mrs. Clinton’s problem, said Symone Sanders, a former top aide to Senator Bernie Sanders’s campaign, is that the candidate is overly cautious and is conducting an outdated style of black outreach.

Ms. Sanders has begun taking matters into her own hands. She said she was working with other young activists to recruit black celebrities for a millennial mobilization tour through Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.

“Black churches and an H.B.C.U. tour is just not going to cut it in 2016,” said Ms. Sanders, referring to historically black colleges and universities. “The Clinton campaign has to be willing to get out of what’s comfortable and get on the streets.”

Mr. Demissie said the Clinton campaign’s efforts were more expansive, pointing to voter registration efforts already underway in barbershops and salons as well as sneaker and video game stores.

Mrs. Clinton has met with mothers of those who lost children at the hands of the police and has used the signature refrain that “black lives matter” in public remarks. But she and her husband also come from an earlier political tradition rooted in the Deep South, where black voters are primarily reached through the church and the threat of white conservative backlash is never far from mind.

Today’s young African-American voters are less likely to be found in black churches and more likely to be found in schools, loosely organized activist groups and online, said Ms. Packnett, the St. Louis activist.

Slide Show | On the Trail: Week of Aug. 28 In the final week of August, Donald Trump made a surprise visit to Mexico, and Hillary Clinton continued to raise funds.
And the leaders are more diverse. “It’s not just heterosexual men,” she noted.

Not only are younger black activists reached in different ways, they also have far higher expectations on leaders, dismissing boilerplate pleas for racial equality and justice as insufficient.

“Gone is the day of patience,” said Tony J. Payton Jr., 35, a former Pennsylvania state representative. “No longer should we accept systemic racism.”

Doubts about how aggressively Mrs. Clinton will move to combat racism are at the heart of black suspicion toward her. Some African-Americans said her 1996 reference to some young criminals as “super-predators,” and the legislation that President Bill Clinton signed imposing stiff sentences on nonviolent offenders, have made today’s activists skeptical about her true intentions.

“That stuff comes up unprompted,” Mr. Belcher said.

Mr. Trump has turned to remarkably blunt language about blacks in recent weeks — portraying their communities as dystopian hellscapes and asking them, in courting their support, “What do you have to lose?” Some African-American allies of Mrs. Clinton believe he is serving as her most effective get-out-the-vote lever.

“He is literally saying something every day that is disrespectful to the black community,” said Michael Blake, a New York State assemblyman from the Bronx who worked on Mr. Obama’s campaigns and is close to many Clinton aides.

Yet when African-American voters in the focus groups were shown campaign fliers and asked to rate them, there was no mistaking what was most effective.

A pamphlet with a picture of Mr. Trump that read, “We have to beat the racists,” fell flat with young black audiences.

Scoring much higher were a stark black and white handout showing the names of those killed at the hands of the police and another with images of mothers of the victims that said, “Their Children Can’t Vote, Will You?”

IMO some young people don't understand that you NEVER get 100% perfect candidates. Even if there was one that person is constrained by the very nature of our government. The President isn't an all powerful King. However the issues important to progressives and minorities are clearly best served under a Democratic Prez. Most of the minority politicians are in the Democratic Party so that vote supports a young Black kids local Black leaders well. I know that it's hard to keep perspective but you can't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good as Obama likes to say.

If not for the extreme obstruction of normal government function but the Republicans, things would be MUCH better for everyone. The Republicans have done NOTHING to improve things over the Obama Presidency. Most of the very little they did do was harmful to the country.

GustavBahler wrote:For all you TPP groupies out there, you know who you are with your TPP posters and T-shirts...

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-washington-post-president-obama-tpp-challenge

The Washington Post-President Obama TPP-Challenge

It's hard to resist a good challenge and the Washington Post gave us one this morning in an editorial pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The editorial criticized TPP opponents and praised President Obama for continuing to push the deal. It tells readers:

"Mr. Obama refused to back down on the merits of the issues, noting that other countries, not the United States, would do most of the market-opening under the TPP and challenging opponents to explain how 'existing trading rules are better for issues like labor rights and environmental rights than they would be if we got TPP passed.'"
Okay, here's how we are better off with existing trade rules than the largely unenforceable provisions on labor and environmental standards in the TPP.

1) The TPP creates an extra-judicial process (investor-state dispute settlement [ISDS] tribunals) whereby foreign investors can sue governments for imposing environmental, health and safety, and even labor regulations. Under the TPP, these tribunals are supposed to follow the far-right wing doctrine of compensating for regulatory takings. This means, for example, that if a state or county restricts fracking for environmental reasons, they would have to compensate a foreign company for profits that it lost as a result of not being allowed to frack or the additional expense resulting from the standards imposed. The ISDS tribunals are not bound by precedent, nor are their decisions subject to appeal.

2) The TPP imposes stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. These protectionist measures are likely to do far more to raise barriers to trade (patent and copyright monopolies are interventions in the free market, even if the Washington Post likes them) than the other measures in the TPP do to reduce them. In addition to the enormous economic distortions associated with barriers that are often equivalent to tariffs of 1000 percent or even 10,000 percent (e.g. raising the price of a patented drug to 100 times the generic price), TPP rules may make it more difficult for millions of people to get essential medicines.

3) By increasing fees that our drug companies and entertainment companies get from foreign countries, they will be making the trade deficit worse in manufacturing and other items. This one requires a little economic theory. It is standard practice for economic models, like the one used by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (which the Post often cites), to assume that a trade deal like the TPP does not affect the U.S. balance of trade.

If this is true then if U.S. drug and entertainment companies get more money in licensing fees and royalties, then we must have a larger deficit in everything else. For example, if we have a $50 billion annual trade deficit with Japan, and Pfizer, Disney, and the rest of the gang are able to collect another $20 billion a year from Japan as a result of the TPP, then our trade deficit in everything else must rise by $20 billion in order to keep the overall trade balance unaffected. If we care more about the jobs of manufacturing workers than the profits of Disney and Pfizer, then this is not a good thing.

4) The TPP does nothing to address the problem of currency management. One of the reasons that the United States faces a persistent shortfall in demand (a.k.a. "secular stagnation") is that it has an annual trade deficit of around $500 billion or roughly 3 percent of GDP. This deficit persists because many countries deliberately prop up the dollar against their currencies.

This is an issue that could have been addressed in the TPP, but President Obama apparently had other priorities. By signing a deal that doesn't impose rules on currency management we make it less likely that we can see serious action on this issue any time soon. The cost of the trade deficit and the resulting weakness in demand is millions of workers needlessly going unemployed and tens of millions earning lower wages as a result of the weakness of the labor market.

So there are my four responses to the WaPo-Obama TPP challenge. Do I win anything?

I should make one other point on the Post editorial. As usual it falls back on the strategic concerns (the last refuge of the scoundrel) when the economic arguments fail:

"Beyond its economic importance, the TPP is — or would be — a pillar of future U.S. strategic relevance in the vital Asia-Pacific region and a check on Chinese influence.."
If the point of the TPP was to advance U.S. strategic goals in the region, President Obama should not have had Pfizer, Disney, and other major corporations determining the framework for the agreement. He may be able to sell this strategic concerns story to the Washington Post editorial board, but not to serious people.

The first three items I can't comment on, I don't know enough about it..But the 4th item, I know a little bit about...NONSENSE..No country is going to let you control their currency management. That's akin to the US selling weapons to another country and we also give them rights to how we manage our defense arsenal or our military...

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:For all you TPP groupies out there, you know who you are with your TPP posters and T-shirts...

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-washington-post-president-obama-tpp-challenge

The Washington Post-President Obama TPP-Challenge

It's hard to resist a good challenge and the Washington Post gave us one this morning in an editorial pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The editorial criticized TPP opponents and praised President Obama for continuing to push the deal. It tells readers:

"Mr. Obama refused to back down on the merits of the issues, noting that other countries, not the United States, would do most of the market-opening under the TPP and challenging opponents to explain how 'existing trading rules are better for issues like labor rights and environmental rights than they would be if we got TPP passed.'"
Okay, here's how we are better off with existing trade rules than the largely unenforceable provisions on labor and environmental standards in the TPP.

1) The TPP creates an extra-judicial process (investor-state dispute settlement [ISDS] tribunals) whereby foreign investors can sue governments for imposing environmental, health and safety, and even labor regulations. Under the TPP, these tribunals are supposed to follow the far-right wing doctrine of compensating for regulatory takings. This means, for example, that if a state or county restricts fracking for environmental reasons, they would have to compensate a foreign company for profits that it lost as a result of not being allowed to frack or the additional expense resulting from the standards imposed. The ISDS tribunals are not bound by precedent, nor are their decisions subject to appeal.

2) The TPP imposes stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. These protectionist measures are likely to do far more to raise barriers to trade (patent and copyright monopolies are interventions in the free market, even if the Washington Post likes them) than the other measures in the TPP do to reduce them. In addition to the enormous economic distortions associated with barriers that are often equivalent to tariffs of 1000 percent or even 10,000 percent (e.g. raising the price of a patented drug to 100 times the generic price), TPP rules may make it more difficult for millions of people to get essential medicines.

3) By increasing fees that our drug companies and entertainment companies get from foreign countries, they will be making the trade deficit worse in manufacturing and other items. This one requires a little economic theory. It is standard practice for economic models, like the one used by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (which the Post often cites), to assume that a trade deal like the TPP does not affect the U.S. balance of trade.

If this is true then if U.S. drug and entertainment companies get more money in licensing fees and royalties, then we must have a larger deficit in everything else. For example, if we have a $50 billion annual trade deficit with Japan, and Pfizer, Disney, and the rest of the gang are able to collect another $20 billion a year from Japan as a result of the TPP, then our trade deficit in everything else must rise by $20 billion in order to keep the overall trade balance unaffected. If we care more about the jobs of manufacturing workers than the profits of Disney and Pfizer, then this is not a good thing.

4) The TPP does nothing to address the problem of currency management. One of the reasons that the United States faces a persistent shortfall in demand (a.k.a. "secular stagnation") is that it has an annual trade deficit of around $500 billion or roughly 3 percent of GDP. This deficit persists because many countries deliberately prop up the dollar against their currencies.

This is an issue that could have been addressed in the TPP, but President Obama apparently had other priorities. By signing a deal that doesn't impose rules on currency management we make it less likely that we can see serious action on this issue any time soon. The cost of the trade deficit and the resulting weakness in demand is millions of workers needlessly going unemployed and tens of millions earning lower wages as a result of the weakness of the labor market.

So there are my four responses to the WaPo-Obama TPP challenge. Do I win anything?

I should make one other point on the Post editorial. As usual it falls back on the strategic concerns (the last refuge of the scoundrel) when the economic arguments fail:

"Beyond its economic importance, the TPP is — or would be — a pillar of future U.S. strategic relevance in the vital Asia-Pacific region and a check on Chinese influence.."
If the point of the TPP was to advance U.S. strategic goals in the region, President Obama should not have had Pfizer, Disney, and other major corporations determining the framework for the agreement. He may be able to sell this strategic concerns story to the Washington Post editorial board, but not to serious people.

The first three items I can't comment on, I don't know enough about it..But the 4th item, I know a little bit about...NONSENSE..No country is going to let you control their currency management. That's akin to the US selling weapons to another country and we also give them rights to how we manage our defense arsenal or our military...

Currency manipulation is a real problem, its gaming the system, the US should at the very least make an effort to curb this practice. No country has to trade with us, making currency manipulation an issue is the right thing to do. How feasible that is remains to be seen.

The ISDS section is the one you really should be concerned about. No exaggerration, its turning over our courts to panels of corporate lawyers who when they arent sitting on this tribunal, they are representing the corporations who will be making claims. This is a long article, but it goes into great detail about the history of ISDS and how it will be on steroids with the TPP.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-tpp-special-court-crushes-domestic-laws-and-plunders-public