This short article posted only at the web site is truly good.http://powertoolquest.com/table-saw-reviews/

I have got the superb information from these blogs finally.http://www.ferrariproductions.com/

Aged human values appear to have disappeared in a common mass persuit of greed

Shame!

Inside the latest batch of Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s hacked emails by WikiLeaks is a stunning story of how the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign staff forced her through the uncomfortable process of flip-flopping against the Trans Pacific Partnership.

In the emails is a bald admission from several campaign staffers that the Democratic presidential nominee flip-flopped on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). That admission is coupled with the revelation of how exactly—over a months-long period—her campaign staff helped her maneuver through her position change on the explosive issue. And all of that is mixed together with the admission in writing in these emails by her campaign manager Robby Mook that Hillary Clinton would not be “comfortable” coming out against TPP during the campaign, even though she had to do it for votes. These emails indicate just how seriously her team of political operatives took the issue—and how they viewed it, as Mook said in one email, as an “annoying” issue in terms of timing—in terms of not infuriating labor unions, which by and large oppose such trade deals. Clinton has had a rocky relationship with Big Labor, as other emails have shown her campaign staff’s frustration with union bosses like the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka.

Clinton’s pollster John Anzalone admitted in the clearest possible language that the goal in manicuring Clinton’s newfound position against TPP was for political purposes to get on the side of voters. In one email, Anzalone detailed how it’s clear that Clinton would lose an “integrity gold star” by not “staying pure” in her support of the TPP and the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast track congressional consideration of TPP and other deals. He also noted that Clinton previously supported the deal in her book Hard Choices, and hinted at the 45 times she previously promoted the deal as reported by CNN. The thinking of coming out against TPP was that it would get Clinton “right with voters” and “right with labor,” as the general public and labor unions both oppose trade deals like TPP, regardless of her actual position on the deal.

“I talked to Marlon [Marshall, Clinton’s director of state campaigns and political engagement] today about this,” Anzalone wrote to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook on April 13, 2015, around 2:45 p.m. He went on:

Naturally we should not be making this decision in a policy vacuum or just because we are concerned about a story of her changing her mind or taking on Obama. It is so much bigger than this. Getting on the wrong side of Labor on the only issue they care about has ramifications on the ground in these early states. I say we suck it up and be as definitive as possible from the beginning that we don’t like these deals. We will be right with voters and right with labor. We get no integrity gold star for staying pure on this issue because of one line if friggin Hard Choices or because this is a key issue for a lame duck president.

A previous email exchange in March 2015detailed how Clinton’s staff believed she intended to support both TPA and TPP. The email from her lead speechwriter makes it very clear: The draft letter he was circulating “assumes that she’s ultimately going to support both TPA and TPP.”

“All, I want to share our draft letter on trade,” Clinton speechwriter Dan Schwerin wrote to Podesta and Mook among others on the Clinton team. Schwerin continued:

As you’ll recall, the idea here is to use this to lay out her thinking on TPA & TPP ahead of action on the Hill and a joint letter by all the former Secretaries of State and Defense. This draft assumes that she’s ultimately going to support both TPA and TPP. It focuses on what needs to happen to produce a positive result with TPP, and casts support for TPA as one of those steps. It also says that we should walk away if the final agreement doesn’t meet the test of creating more jobs than it displaces, helping the middle class, and strengthening our national security. We’ve tried to speak directly to the most prominent concerns expressed by Labor and Hill Dems, including Warren. Of course, if we go ahead with a meeting with HRC to lay out the pros and cons and then come to a different conclusion, this letter would change dramatically.

To set the scene here, at this stage of the game, Congress was soon going to be considering the highly controversial TPA fast track authority. Fast track greases the skids for congressional approval of trade deals, lowering U.S. Senate vote thresholds to 51 votes rather than 60 votes needed to pass them. It also eliminates the ability for Congress to amend trade deals, and forces Congress to consider trade deals in a certain amount of time after the president introduces them onto the fast track. It is widely understood that passing TPA is absolutely necessary to passing any multilateral global trade deal, as no deal would muster 60 votes in the Senate or survive a grueling amendment process where opponents could run out the clock. Killing TPA would have killed TPP, but technically speaking TPP can still be killed—even though it still hasn’t been—in a much harder way on the fast track.

Congressional passage of TPA last year inspired a surge in populist nationalism that served as the backbone of the presidential campaigns of eventual GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and of Clinton’s primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. From both sides, Clinton—the former Secretary of State, former U.S. Senator and former First Lady who’s married to a former president known for backing globalist trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—has taken incoming on trade policy. The issue nuked the last man standing against Trump in the GOP primaries, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose ambivalence was part of what cost him the nomination. And it certainly had the potential to derail Clinton in her battle against Sanders.

These emails indicate that her staff understood that Clinton was in favor of TPP. Specifically, in her book Hard Choices—as Anzalone referenced in that April 13, 2015, email—Clinton praised the TPP as beneficial to American workers. Hillary Clinton wrote:

One of our most important tools for engaging with Vietnam was a proposed new trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. As President Obama explained, the goal of TPP negotiations is to establish ‘a high standard, enforceable, meaningful trade agreement’ that ‘is going to be incredibly powerful for American companies who, up until this point, have often been locked out of those markets.’ It was also important for American workers who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field. And it was a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.

That was in addition to at least 45 other times she praised and promoted TPP, as reported on June 15, 2015, by CNN’s Jake Tapper and his reporting staff. Clinton would not actually officially oppose TPP until October 2015, stating according to CNN in an Oct. 7, 2015 interview with PBS’ sJudy Woodruff: “As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.”

Trade is great ONLY after all of a country's own workers are fully employed.

Corporations care little about the ONLY.

ct

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Helvetica}

“Oh Tom”

{… a limerick …}

“Oh Tom,” the trade-fans objected,

“we WANT to become subjected

to T. P. P., -

- 'cause it makes us so free

and oh so dandily protected.”

==========================

When Dubya's ethics lawyer is requesting the investigation into comey, how any one can defend Comey is beyond me. This is not because Comey is picking on the left; not when a member of the far right (actually just a deeply entrenched republican) is asking for the investigation. Karl Smiley, do you know what a false equivalency is?

A fixed version of the video has been uploaded. http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/full-show-1122016-eli-lilly-feels-bern-0

I blame the Democratic establishment and the media for promoting a terrible presidential candidate over a more popular and qualified candidate, Bernie Sanders. If Trump is elected as a result, we will have the proof. There is nothing that a Donald Trump can do that is in any way more damaging than Bush did and whose policies were continued by Obama. Secretary Clinton says she wants to continue President Obama's policies. Those policies include fighting against free speech and privacy rights and escalating the state of perpetual war. She is a neoliberal who believes, like Obama, in austerity as a solution for our failing economy which makes her another enemy of the American middle class. The elites and establishment must be stopped by any legal means necessary.

The voting booth is the perfect place to start by repudiating the Democratic nominee in light of the terrible challenger put up by the Republicans.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 18.0px Helvetica}

A Synopsis of the News

{… a limerick …}

The news reports volatility

fueled by Rightwing hostility

both pre-election

then after selection.

We’ll never again have docility.

========================

Easy to surmise conspiracy theories.