As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama Commerce Secretary Can’t Explain Hillary’s TPP Flip Flop

Commerce Secretary Penny Prtizker says “I don’t understand” Clinton’s new view that the Trans Pacific Trade deal is no good.

Well, I can explain it. It’s the same reason Ted Cruz flip flopped on the issue. Trade deals aren’t popular with the base of either Party.

12 Responses to Obama Commerce Secretary Can’t Explain Hillary’s TPP Flip Flop

  1. And both of them (Cruz and Clinton) try to deny they have flipped. Cruz VOTED for the deal, and now he doesn’t support it? Clinton supported Bill’s NAFTA and Obama’s TPP, and NOW she’s a protectionist? She probably didn’t have a private email server, either.

    • Are they not saying the same thing about Trump flip flopping.

      Also, didn’t a senator say something about voting for it before voting against it?

  2. I think I can explain these bewildering flip-flops on trade issues by both Cruz and Clinton; Trump.
    Americans, regardless of party loyalty, might not understand the fine details of the international trade agreements, but they know and have experienced the results. The trade agreements have cost millions of workers their jobs when the companies they worked for got steamrolled by foreign interests.
    As the employees stand by helpless, American companies find better financial atmospheres outside the US with less red tape, fewer regulations and of course, lower wages.
    MrTrump recognized the frustration and anger of the American worker and their families at issues the political elites either ignored or just dismissed with insults of racism against foreign interests.
    MrTrump did more than confuse the political experts with his novel and harsh campaign, he opened the box of American citizen’s grievances that our elected officials and special interests assumed would remain closed forever.
    Trump is the answer to almost every question of what is happening today in political circles.

    • Speaking of Trump’s fine grasp of international reality, did you read how he plans to get Mexico to pay for the wall…Threaten to stop all payments from people here back to Mexico and the Mexican govt will cave. Extortion or quid pro quo–to make it more palatable (assuming this EVER hot out of court), he said most payments are from illegals, although govt sources says even they don’t know that–and he sure doesn’t.

      • Pretty much I don’t really have a problem with stopping payments, or charging an exorbitant processing fee. If that is what it takes.

        We do not seem to have a problem with obscenely taxing American companies who might want to repatriate their overseas profits. As a result the operations remain out of the country.

        As far as I am concerned when SCOTUS rules on something that involves a large number of recognized “illegal aliens” and does not bat a judicial eye that these are people living illegally in this country, all bets are off when it comes to those living illegally in the US.

      • Really, under a Trump presidency, the illegals are going to go to sue? That’s called “turning themselves in”. The paddy wagons will be running them south 24-7. Bring it on. This is half tongue-in-cheek.

  3. Recently , in an interview, DiFi had to google HRC’s “accomplishments” at State. Perhaps she needs to send out talking points on this.

  4. Trade Agreement by a career politician: “I agree to throw the American working class minions under the bus for financial maneuvers that benefit my personal political career”.

    I can explain the flip-flops by politicians. “It benefited me, now it doesn’t benefit me.” It’s not hard at all.