"more acceptable to Wall Street than Main Street"? What specifically in his record do you find concerning?

anything else?

That called for two dollars cut for every dollar of revenue brought in.

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is on Hillary Clinton’s short list of potential vice presidential nominees. He’s also actively pushing bank deregulation this week as he campaigns for the job.

Kaine signed two letters on Monday urging federal regulators to go easy on banks ― one to help big banks dodge risk management rules, and another to help small banks avoid consumer protection standards.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is believed to be weighing Kaine among a handful of other potential VP choices. Her pick is widely viewed in Washington as a sign of her governing intentions. The former secretary of state has spent weeks attempting to woo progressive supporters of vanquished primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Choosing from one of the handful of names on her short list ― Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) or Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), for instance ― would signal that her camp is taking progressive concerns seriously.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tim-kaine-clinton-vp_us_578fc8e3e4b0bdddc4d2c86c

Fortunately, that is not Clinton's position. She's has had a specific regulation program on her website for many months now.

for you doubters.

She's given extensive details on her policy. People who are bullshitting don't take the time to develop specific and practical policy details. Liz Warren also supports it.

need you to be correct.

of developing an extensive policy, full of details, just to fool people? Clinton has leveled with voters about what she thinks she can accomplish rather than promising what she knows she cannot. Getting anything through congress in the current climate is a challenge, but we all have a role to play in that.

Now I understand that some people believe integrity is determined by not changing one's mind on anything in a half century. I disagree, both as a matter of personal, intellectual growth and certainly for elected representatives whose job is to represent the electorate. Clinton pays attention to what voters care about. I understand some see that as a detriment. I do not. I see it as essential to their responsibility in government.

What does Joe Biden do?

away from the Presidency.

You stop ascribing nefarious motives to her and actually listen and read what she has to say. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
Hillary Clinton is not Eve. She bears no resemblance to the caricature created about her by her detractors. Intellectual integrity requires an examination of evidence.

In my view, the majority of anti-Clinton rhetoric says far more about those who engage in it than Hillary Clinton herself.

People of course are free to vote as they choose, but voting against her entails a decision to move the country to the right: toward greater racism, tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of business, and rolling back equal rights of everyone but straight, white men. The contrast couldn't be clearer.

Clinton praised the TTP when she was SOS because her job was to advocate for the President's proposals. She was largely quiet about it during the early primaries because she didn't want to embarrass a sitting Democratic president.

😂😂😂😂😂

http://bluevirginia.us/2016/07/tim-kaine-oppose-bank-regulation-huffpost-fail-get-whole-story

I agree that community banks shouldn't have gotten banged around like they did. They tend to be pretty good, if I am not mistaken.

marriage as between one man and one woman. He did this after promising to veto it during his election. Remember that he's 'personally opposed to abortion and promises to keep his personal feelings out of legislation' and then chew on that 'promised to veto but signed it' part. He opposed civil unions, opposed marriage equality and he did so until every other Democrat had started to use the word 'bigot' for those who oppose equality. That's Tim.

a public referendum and never signed by the Governor. The courts threw it out. Stop spreading misinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall-Newman_Amendment

The governor did not sign it and could not have stopped it.

Emphasis added by me.

Damn, you must have this lie on some kind of bot to keep this up!

His command of Spanish is a large benefit and he will definitely secure Virginia, a hugely importantly state. He will also draw in a lost of centrists and moderate Republicans who cannot stand the monster that is Trump. The Sanders left will stamp their 5 for 5 minutes and then 90% fall in line to stomp the Republicans come November.

I also am sure that the TPP can be fixed to assuage many of the fears that people have. It may take several years but we cannot go isolationist in a global economy. I live in London and I am shuddering what Brexit will mean for my firm.

The only option Congress has now is a straight up or down vote.

If it takes a few years, it takes a few years. I can wait.

Sorry, but that just is not true.

would alleviate concerns about subjugating national, domestic interests to corporate interests?

What I see in TPP is putting corporations ahead of American people. Free trade has not been fair to the American workforce. We have a structurally unsustainable economy in part as a result of free trade agreements. How would TPP be fixed to not simply contribute further to that?

http://itsoureconomy.us/2012/09/an-alternative-to-the-tpp-the-21st-century-trade-and-market-access-act/


For too long, U.S. trade policy has benefited transnational corporations at the expense of workers’ rights, consumer safety and the environment at home and abroad. The pending TransPacific Partnership (TPP) represents the most significant opportunity to learn from the mistakes of past NAFTA-style trade agreements, and build a new international consensus around trade policy for the 21st Century.

First introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the 21st Century Trade and Market Access Act would delegate authority to the President to negotiate the TPP and other trade agreements, while reasserting Congressional and public oversight into the substance of the negotiations. The legislation sets a number of binding negotiating requirements regarding labor rights, the environment, food safety and other trade provisions, while also establishing commonsense compliance reporting mechanisms and the streamlining of trade and export promotion activities in order to maximize the job creation potential of U.S. trade agreements.

The 21 st Century Trade and Market Access Act’s basic provisions:

Section 3 (Presidential Report): Requires the President to make findings to Congress on a country’s form of government, labor standards, environmental standards, religious freedoms, human trafficking and currency manipulation prior to initiating trade negotiations with it (and within 30 days of the bill’s enactment for any existing negotiations)

Section 4 (Market Assessment): Requires the U.S. International Trade Commission to assess the market access potential of any country prior to the President initiating trade negotiations with it (and within 30 days of the bill’s enactment for any existing negotiations)

Section 5 (Access Commitments): Requires the U.S. Trade Representative to report annually to Congress on the market access commitments of countries with which the U.S. has trade agreements and how those obligations have been or will be met

Section 6 (Policymaking): A Sense-of-the-Congress provision that describes criteria for trade policymaking procedures that should replace Fast Track.

Section 7 (Standards): Sets mandatory criteria for what must and must not be included in trade agreements regarding labor, the environment, product safety, agriculture, public services, government procurement, investment, intellectual property, anti-dumping, dispute resolution, national security, states’ rights and more.

Section 8 (Coordination): Amends the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to improve coordination of export enhancement activities among federal agencies.

Section 9 (Resource Allocation): Amends the Export Enhancement Act of 1988 to mandate a global assessment of the Foreign Commercial Service and redeploy personnel and other resources based on the assessment.

Section 10 (Diplomacy): Amends the Foreign Service Act of 1980 in order to expand diplomatic efforts to reduce barriers to increased U.S. exports

The 21st Century Trade and Market Access Act’s new standards:

Labor: Countries must adopt into domestic law and effectively enforce the International Labor Organization’s core labor standards. Failure to do so subjects parties to dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms that are at least as stringent as those for commercial claims.

Environment: Countries are prohibited from eliminating, weakening or failing to enforce domestic environmental protections for trade purposes. Trade in illegally-harvested resources is banned. Countries must fully implement and enforce all multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party. Failure to do so is subject to dispute resolution and enforcement.

Consumer Safety: Food, feed and all consumer products may only be imported into the U.S. if they meet or exceed U.S. safety standards. The FDA and CPSC are instructed to review the regulations of trading partners and ensure that products entering the U.S. meet this requirement.

Services: Trade agreements cannot be used to require privatization or deregulation of services.

Investment: Countries maintain the right to regulate foreign investment according to their own priorities, and to place restrictions on speculative capital. Foreign investors must not be given greater rights than domestic investors, and the concepts “investor,” “investment,” “expropriation” and “national treatment” are all clarified to protect governments’ ability to regulate.

Procurement: Procurement provisions in trade agreements must not undermine prevailing wage, recycled content, sustainable harvest, renewable energy or human rights policies or project labor agreements. Procurement obligations cannot apply to local governments, and only to states that specifically agree.

Intellectual Property: Drug patenting requirements must not undermine the access to medicine standards set in the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, and patents on traditional knowledge must be consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity. Internet service providers may not be generally obligated to monitor electric information that they transmit or store.

Agriculture: Countries are allowed to develop strategic agricultural reserves and enact policies allowing for fair remuneration for growers and farm workers. Countries may maintain antidumping policies and U.S. anti-trust laws cannot be preempted.

State-Owned Enterprises: Requires that countries party to a trade agreement report annually on state-owned enterprises that invest or conduct operations in other countries party to the agreement. Prohibits countries from giving subsidies or other benefits to these enterprises that provide a competitive advantage.

States’ Rights: States can only be required to comply with procurement, services or investment provisions with their explicit prior informed consent.

I live here in Virginia, and to be honest I haven't seen anything supporting what you've just said .

you are "shuddering [about] what Brexit may mean for my firm". I may be totally wrong about this, but it just seems to me that we are too influenced by impact on "firms" as opposed to people, and a focus on "my" as opposed to "we". Living, governing and operating within these two constructs has created much of the economic travail we face today.

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess I need to put that in my profile, I am new to this site

Those who say such things rarely have anything to lose..

Actually, I think your question is a good example of what I am concerned about. It sounds to me like you are saying that the only people who want to effect real change regarding corporatism/globalism are those who've been marginalized by it. Whether I personally gain or lose is --and should be -- irrelevant if the goal of distributing economic benefit more widely is genuine, no? However, if one prefers to looks at things more egocentrically, that probably is not the case. If you are implying that I must have nothing to lose financially, I would simply say I think you are wrong.

It also will affect dozens of our employees if we go under.

to the degree to which all others are affected. Everything has an effect. All I'm saying is that when we place corporate goals above all else, the interests of average people get lost ... and they are affected negatively. Over the past 35 years, this has been epidemic.

You sound like you are chastising me for being concerned for the future of our business and concerned for our employees. Of course I am concerned for all involved, including myself. We have sweated, pushed, pulled, bled out tears (of joy, of anguish and of stress) to make what we have today. Having created and having run a successful firm that puts food on the table for close to 60 people in various degrees is not an act of "placing corporate goals above people". It's a labour of love and of revenue that sustains our lives.

I never can understand some people's inherent hostility toward SME owners like myself. It just drives me bonkers at times. If small firms start to fail at significant numbers, if redundancies pile up too high, it throws a spanner in the works for the whole bloody economy at a macro level.

I can see how it could sound that way. My comment about matter of degree was meant as amount of skin in the game. I can see how a small business owner would have more to lose ... but that doesn't mean I and a lot of other folks who don't work for multi-nationals don't have something to lose. I am equally frustrated by what seems to me like a dismissive attitude toward working class economic issues and concerns by corporatist and neoliberal apologists. Brexit and the nationalism that suppirted it happened for a reason. Small businesses are indeed vital, but there is plenty of room in the realm of economic policy to protect and foster business AND people. We haven't been doing so well at that the past 40 years ... the existing trade agreements haven't helped on balance.

and I detest Asymmetrical Investor Protection. We are socially responsible and pro-worker SME owners. We strive for a democratic workplace through a "learning organization" model, along the lines championed by Peter Senge. When we bring in a new potential placement, all the relevant people from that sphere of operations get to meet them and give input into the hiring process. We will soon give our employees profit sharing and currently have incentives laid out to help green their lives. Examples being a no-car ownership bonus, and discounts on bicycles from 3 different EU firms we cut deals with over the course of our professional/educational careers.

Small businesses are the backbone of economic communities in my view. I wish you much success.

This is someone who could become president sometime over the next 8 years. Probably not, but it's not exactly an uncommon occurrence.

After the election, I'm guessing she'll be for it again.

had an air of entitlement.

Oh, well, if YOU don't approve I guess we really can't go forward with this.

"I'm sorry. but .... " is something a parent or a store clerk says, implying it's your ultimate decision and you just know better.

It's passive aggressive.

Look at DU and it's a regular trope of the Debby Downers.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to live with whomever Clinton picks or vote for someone else.

All this Sturm und Drabg over a vice presidential pick is absurd anyway. The VP does nothing.

is the only type of aggression allowed here on this topic. After the pick, that won't be allowed.

"I'm sorry, but" picking a blue dog TPP supporter, is not a pick progressives will be excited about.

I'm snarking at everyone who suggests a VP pick is decisive or some kind of deal breaker.

Can't even think of the last VP who became president. I guess it was HW Bush, and he only lasted one term.

They do nothing.

and most of those became president through succession rather than election. One heartbeat away. We don't need a blue dog in that chair.

was in 1988.

It hasn't happened since then, unless you count Gore as "wwinning."

And you know what Tim Kaine is inaruguably well qualified to be a good president. And Elizabeth Warren actually less so.

A freaking tempest in a teapot. If you can't vote for Clinton after last night's Nurember Rally because she didn't pick the right symbolic sidekick for your progressive fee fees not to get an owie, you go right ahead and vote for Jill Stein with your friends Cornell West and whoever else is left to be perfect and pure.

This is the essence of concern trolling.

Are you serious?

Ever hear of Lyndon Baines Johnson?

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush. That's approaching 50%. I was born the year Kennedy was elected.

MLK was assassinated on my 8th birthday. I do remember 1968 well. Tough time for this country.

in the NE corner.

or maybe a couple nights before, downtown.

Thing anything might have changed?

Could it happen? Yeah. Likely? No.

And I'm ok with Kaine as president of it does.

You're gonna go bye bye if she picks the mean boring banker loving guy?

You saw the alternative last night. You just be very privileged indeed.

If you can say you're not voting for her because she picks Kaine over Warren or whomever you never were in the first place.

Vice Presidents do nothing. Nothing.

Cheney.

And be reminded that VPs often become POTUSs.

Kaine is a terrible pick.

Hasn't happened since 1988 but who's counting?

They do nothing.

The lottery, and I'm buying more than a few tix. Like it or not, just because it hasn't happened since 1988 didn't mean it won't happen again.

VPs are important.

Not a future projection.

The forces that used to make the VP a successor in waiting are gone.

But it is true that Trump has about a 33 percent chance of winning, thanks to ideological purists.

than you think. Johnson became president after assassination. Nixon was elected. He was the VP of the last decent Republican who served. Ford was POTUS after resignation. Bush was elected. That's four of the last nine presidents who were VP. That's over half. Now, let's talk about the same time period and VPs that became nominees. Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, Bush, Gore. And, I dare say that had it not been for Beau's death we might be taking about Biden right now.

VPs get the party nomination more often than not.

They are important, and Kaine is not a good standard bearer for Dems, imo.

At least you admit a Trump presidency won't be any problem for you.

you must be wealthy, white, straight, and old.


For people of color they are not "the same" at all. For the poor, not the same at all. For religious minorities or transgender youth, not the same at all.

And all this over a completely symbolic appointment.

As I said, privilege is a hell of a drug.

Shameful and childish.

There is a difference of opinion. So what.

is the childish comment here.

You saw our option last night. If your difference of "opinion" on which figurehead fills the useless and unimportant role of VP affects your decision to vote democratic or not, you're a deeply privileged and childish person. You'll help elect a bigoted fascist.


But of course if wil be Hillary's fault for not being perfect enough for you.

them childish.
You see, here you are doing the same thing.

I am not saying either of you is right or wrong, but.......
Rate's argument, in my opinion, is a totally different construct.

saying your vote depends on her VP pick is asinine.

And I suggest you never planned to support her, and are just looking for excuses.

As of tomorrow we stop having this debate. Support the ticket or don't. They make websites for purist ideological holdouts with too much privilege to care. This ain't one of them.

What?

This isn't about me. It is about rate eyes?

"Kaine's a Reagan and I'll be damned to support any ticket he's on."

So what part of "I won't vote for her if she picks the wrong VP" did I get wrong?

We've just seen a four-day hate-fest where the main theme is "Get Hillary." This message will resonate in many hateful and unstable minds as "Kill Hillary." There is a very real danger stalking Hillary Clinton, and we need a vice president who'll be able to fill her shoes if necessary. I'm not only voting for a Presidential candidate, I'm also voting for her replacement, if the unthinkable happens.

And your "Vote for Hillary or you love Trump" shit, your black or white, yes / no equivalencies, are not accurate, either.

I have the choice of full-on campaigning, donating, and participating. I have the choice of losing my enthusiasm and showing up on voting day and merely voting. Multiply this by millions, and it will make a difference. And a dim-bulb, low-wattage, "Oh no, not this again" VP candidate will produce that effect.

It just seems like that if she chooses Kaine that at least makes Hillary not have more credibility than Trump on those issues.

What trade or financial reform does he stand for? Does he support full LGBT equality (which, of course, Hillary fully supports)? Does he realize what's in the Republican platform in terms of LGBT persons? I feel like you're exaggerating his ability to appeal to anybody outside his xenophobic, far right-wing base. I mean, most establishment Republicans don't even want to have anything to do with him and barely any of them are even attending their OWN PARTY'S CONVENTION.

that's the goal. Kaine will be forgotten next week. It'll be all concern about the Democratic convention, how it's not being handled right, the mistakes being made and how they hand the election to Donald. You know it's coming.

much to the table other than Virginia. Other than that,he's boring. I would have preferred Warren or Brown.

Means you deliver that state is a naive notion that needs to be buried.

appeal to any other groups though.

Because I don't think you do.

Here his approval is 44%. Not exactly popular.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/poll-gop-has-edge-in-va-senate-races-among-likely-voters/2015/09/25/f81cb4a6-6377-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

which arguably does more good for Clinton nationally than any one state.

So what?

Dubya only knows a few phrases, but he did *much* better with Hispanic voters than any subsequent Republican.

His stances on immigration and women's issues contrast starkly with tRump AND Pence. I wish he were getting more exposure. Perhaps, after Trump's bombastic climax, Hillary will give the immigration issue more thought and thus give Becerra more consideration.

I not enthusiastic about a Kaine pick. He's boring and bit to the right of where I am. But Lieberman? Nah dude. Not even close. Kaine isn't the best pick, IMO, but he's not the worst. He WILL need to sharpen his knives though. He's a bit too soft spoken with this WWE version of an election. He's going to need to fillet Trump, and particularly Pence. I'm not 100% convinced he can, but HRC thinks he can, and I'm willing to give him a shot.

to give him a shot.

Kaine is one of the least LGBT friendly Democrats in the entire Party. Many nasty action and more nasty words against us. He should not even be considered because of that. If his history was that of attacking any other minority group he'd not be considered.

What's not to like about the guy?

In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[142] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage,[143] saying "I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution."[144]

In the Senate, Kaine has co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[145]

Kaine's position on LGBT adoption has changed over time. In 2005, Kaine said that "No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple — that's the right policy."[146] In 2011, however, Kaine shifted his position, saying "if a judge thinks adoption by an unmarried couple—gay or straight—meets that standard, then the couple should be allowed to complete the adoption."[147] In 2012, he stated that "There should be a license that would entitle a committed couple to the same rights as a married couple."[148]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine

In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[142] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage,[143] saying "I believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be guaranteed the full rights to the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the Constitution."[144]

In the Senate, Kaine has co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[145]

Kaine's position on LGBT adoption has changed over time. In 2005, Kaine said that "No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple — that's the right policy."[146] In 2011, however, Kaine shifted his position, saying "if a judge thinks adoption by an unmarried couple—gay or straight—meets that standard, then the couple should be allowed to complete the adoption."[147] In 2012, he stated that "There should be a license that would entitle a committed couple to the same rights as a married couple."[148]