[QUOTE=Anderan;51362659]"everybody does it" does not make it ok. Especially if it's supposed to be a watchdog group dedicated to exposing corruption.[/QUOTE]
then ignore the media arm of wikileaks riding off the success of the actually leaks and take the leaks that they leak as what they are. Leaks
Also everybody saying that something new will come around the block are pretty much correct. There are already things like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement"]TISA[/URL] in the works.
[QUOTE=Wii60;51361750][url]http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253[/url]
totally[/QUOTE]
i guess people can't change their minds
If Trump ends up being a shit president, then hopefully the Democrats will have learned their lesson about snuffing Bernie and maybe consider putting an actual progressive candidate up against Trump so we can not worry about something like the TPP for another 8 years.
Seeing as they're already trying to push Tim Kaine for 2020 though...:speechless:
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51363808]i guess people can't change their minds[/QUOTE]
She brought this upon herself. In 2012 she said "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field"; that is unequivocally support for the TPP.
As time went on she switches to a more "wait and see how negotiations go" approach. Had she started with that, rather than hailing the TPP as this amazing thing at the start, she wouldn't be seen a flip flopping on the issue.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51363886]She brought this upon herself. In 2012 she said "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field"; that is unequivocally support for the TPP.
As time went on she switches to a more "wait and see how negotiations go" approach. Had she started with that, rather than hailing the TPP as this amazing thing at the start, she wouldn't be seen a flip flopping on the issue.[/QUOTE]
Why is 'being able to change your position on things when information you weren't aware of is brought to the table' seen as a negative trait?
[editline]13th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51363879]If Trump ends up being a shit president, then hopefully the Democrats will have learned their lesson about snuffing Bernie and maybe consider putting an actual progressive candidate up against Trump so we can not worry about something like the TPP for another 8 years.
Seeing as they're already trying to push Tim Kaine for 2020 though...:speechless:[/QUOTE]
2020 election will be Kanye West vs Stephen Colbert though
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51363879]If Trump ends up being a shit president, then hopefully the Democrats will have learned their lesson about snuffing Bernie and maybe consider putting an actual progressive candidate up against Trump so we can not worry about something like the TPP for another 8 years.
Seeing as they're already trying to push Tim Kaine for 2020 though...:speechless:[/QUOTE]
If the establishment win the DNC civil war then they are as guilty for Trump as Trump himself.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51363912]Why is 'being able to change your position on things when information you weren't aware of is brought to the table' seen as a negative trait?[/QUOTE]
Let's say 2 years before a game's release date, a reviewer posted an unqualified glowing review of said game, calling it the golden standard of games. Not the golden standard of work in progress games, not the golden standard for incomplete games, no just the golden standard for video games.
Then, as time goes on and leaks start happening--leaks that are not responded to favorably by the public--this reviewer starts backing out of their previous statements, saying they'll have to "wait and see how development goes", is that not suspicious (as if they may have changed their tone not because of their own beliefs, but because they didn't want to go against the popular opinion)? Then details of the final game get leaked leaked, and it's still received badly. Then the reviewer goes and says the game is bad and they don't support it.
Would people not be in the right to call out that reviewer on making an unqualified glowing review of a game that they knew full well was far from finished? Could people not reasonably question if the reviewer actually agrees the game is bad and will not give good reviews to similarly bad games in the future, given the chance?
But I mean sure, good for the reviewer for backing out after the early leaked version of the game was being received poorly. Good for them for not pointlessly pulling their reputation further down by continuing to support a clearly sinking ship.
In short, are you telling me she was not aware negotiations were not done 3 years from when they actually finished? Because, knowing they were not was all the information she should have needed to not give an unqualified glowing endorsement of TPP. Period.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.