Obama’s Trade Deal Faces Bipartisan Peril in the House

[kiwiman127]

When I read one article and it's something major and has a huge effect on this country, I read several articles and try real hard to get all the angles.

 

[kiwiman127]

This secrecy is not good for America.
What are Obama and the GOP so afraid of that they want keep America in the dark? Is it because it betrays America and the American workforce and sets a path of continued flat wages and the decline of America?

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

 

[Kosh]

This secrecy is not good for America.
What are Obama and the GOP so afraid of that they want keep America in the dark? Is it because it betrays America and the American workforce and sets a path of continued flat wages and the decline of America?

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

And you see how the far left drones try and deflect from their own..

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.

NAFTA signed into law - Dec 08 1993 - HISTORY.com

But leave it to the far left to twist history so they can justify voting for Hilary!

 

[FA_Q2]

This secrecy is not good for America.
What are Obama and the GOP so afraid of that they want keep America in the dark? Is it because it betrays America and the American workforce and sets a path of continued flat wages and the decline of America?

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

Because free trade is part of both parties ajendas. The GOP will gladly tag along with Obama for things that they push. The democrats like to state otherwise but that is the truth.

The dems oppose this atm, IMHO, because it looks bad for their platform of 'for the little guy.' Basically, they are worried about their base.

 

[Freewill]

This secrecy is not good for America.
What are Obama and the GOP so afraid of that they want keep America in the dark? Is it because it betrays America and the American workforce and sets a path of continued flat wages and the decline of America?

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

Actually I didn't say anything different. Without Clinton the bill goes down in filibuster. Perot predicted the outcome and it certainly seems he was correct on every count.

If Bush 1 would have won reelection NAFTA never would have happened. Remember the Unions making the threat that those who voted in favor would be punished? Then they did absolutely nothing except not vote for Republicans....hollow threats from partisan sheep.

Timeline - NAFTA

 

[kiwiman127]

This secrecy is not good for America.
What are Obama and the GOP so afraid of that they want keep America in the dark? Is it because it betrays America and the American workforce and sets a path of continued flat wages and the decline of America?

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

Actually I didn't say anything different. Without Clinton the bill goes down in filibuster. Perot predicted the outcome and it certainly seems he was correct on every count.

If Bush 1 would have won reelection NAFTA never would have happened. Remember the Unions making the threat that those who voted in favor would be punished? Then they did absolutely nothing except not vote for Republicans....hollow threats from partisan sheep.

Timeline - NAFTA

That's all conjecture.
See, this is what I mean, partisan's just can't bring themselves to be critical of their own ideologies mistakes. They just can't do it. That's called being easily manipulated.
Grow some balls.

 

[Freewill]

Not sure the GOP should be lumped in with Obama, it is he who negotiated the agreements. But I am not sure why the GOP would want to give more power to Obama. Does not make sense.

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

Actually I didn't say anything different. Without Clinton the bill goes down in filibuster. Perot predicted the outcome and it certainly seems he was correct on every count.

If Bush 1 would have won reelection NAFTA never would have happened. Remember the Unions making the threat that those who voted in favor would be punished? Then they did absolutely nothing except not vote for Republicans....hollow threats from partisan sheep.

Timeline - NAFTA

That's all conjecture.
See, this is what I mean, partisan's just can't bring themselves to be critical of their own ideologies mistakes. They just can't do it. That's called being easily manipulated.
Grow some balls.

What you posted is not true at all. IF congress were made up exclusively of Republicans the agreements would have passed, no doubt. But no matter how much the Republicans wanted them, much to my displeasure as I stated before, the agreements would never have passed without a Democrat president pushing, which is in reality what happened and what is going to happen this time around.

This "free" trade BS is the biggest hit I have against Republicans. My only other choices are Independent and not having a vote in the primary. Or democrat and that, my friend, will never happen.

 

[kiwiman127]

I think you need to do some reading up on this, pick up information from unbiased resources and then go into the objective thinking mode. The GOP is up to it's neck in this and are complicit with Obama.
I really have a rough time understanding why people are so afraid of pointing fingers at the faults of their own ideology. It's not always just the other side.

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

Actually I didn't say anything different. Without Clinton the bill goes down in filibuster. Perot predicted the outcome and it certainly seems he was correct on every count.

If Bush 1 would have won reelection NAFTA never would have happened. Remember the Unions making the threat that those who voted in favor would be punished? Then they did absolutely nothing except not vote for Republicans....hollow threats from partisan sheep.

Timeline - NAFTA

That's all conjecture.
See, this is what I mean, partisan's just can't bring themselves to be critical of their own ideologies mistakes. They just can't do it. That's called being easily manipulated.
Grow some balls.

What you posted is not true at all. IF congress were made up exclusively of Republicans the agreements would have passed, no doubt. But no matter how much the Republicans wanted them, much to my displeasure as I stated before, the agreements would never have passed without a Democrat president pushing, which is in reality what happened and what is going to happen this time around.

This "free" trade BS is the biggest hit I have against Republicans. My only other choices are Independent and not having a vote in the primary. Or democrat and that, my friend, will never happen.

Would you like to point out exactly my falsehoods were?
Clinton/Democrats did face massive pressure from not only unions but also it's party's base. I had a friend of mine at the time who was running a phone room rallying opposition to NAFTA, when I was living in Seattle. From what I remember, each state had an office to call statewide to rally the troops to put the heat on, complete with petitions. Clinton and the Dems who voted for the ratification simply blew off the protests within their ranks. It was a bi-partison vote that ratified NAFTA.
In a previous post, you stated that George HW couldn't of passed NAFTA because the unions. Look at how weak the unions had become at the time of the vote for ratification.

 

[Freewill]

Do you have a suggests as to what I should be reading? The article implies that it is Obama who is negotiating the deals. Republicans have always been for free trade, much to my displeasure but are not able to get it done without Democrats, as was the case when Clinton sold us down the river. What is interesting that if the Republicans block Obama they are said to be no good, and it they work with him the same is said by the same people.

Actually, NAFTA was George HW's baby, he signed the agreement in 1992, but it needed to be ratified by Congress. So HW's other son (Clinton) continued with NAFTA to get it ratified. Clinton added two additional agreements (North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation & North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation) to get the liberal vote he needed. NAFTA was passed by a bi-partisan vote.
Just thought you needed a more accurate overview of NAFTA.

Actually I didn't say anything different. Without Clinton the bill goes down in filibuster. Perot predicted the outcome and it certainly seems he was correct on every count.

If Bush 1 would have won reelection NAFTA never would have happened. Remember the Unions making the threat that those who voted in favor would be punished? Then they did absolutely nothing except not vote for Republicans....hollow threats from partisan sheep.

Timeline - NAFTA

That's all conjecture.
See, this is what I mean, partisan's just can't bring themselves to be critical of their own ideologies mistakes. They just can't do it. That's called being easily manipulated.
Grow some balls.

What you posted is not true at all. IF congress were made up exclusively of Republicans the agreements would have passed, no doubt. But no matter how much the Republicans wanted them, much to my displeasure as I stated before, the agreements would never have passed without a Democrat president pushing, which is in reality what happened and what is going to happen this time around.

This "free" trade BS is the biggest hit I have against Republicans. My only other choices are Independent and not having a vote in the primary. Or democrat and that, my friend, will never happen.

Would you like to point out exactly my falsehoods were?
Clinton/Democrats did face massive pressure from not only unions but also it's party's base. I had a friend of mine at the time who was running a phone room rallying opposition to NAFTA, when I was living in Seattle. From what I remember, each state had an office to call statewide to rally the troops to put the heat on, complete with petitions. Clinton and the Dems who voted for the ratification simply blew off the protests within their ranks. It was a bi-partison vote that ratified NAFTA.
In a previous post, you stated that George HW couldn't of passed NAFTA because the unions. Look at how weak the unions had become at the time of the vote for ratification.
View attachment 41980

you were wrong in saying I was not critical of the Republicans, not so.

I did not say that GHWB could not get it passed without Unions. What I said was he could not get it passed with just Republican support it took democrat support which I remember at the time would not have happened and did not happen. It took Clinton rallying the democrats to get the agreements passed.

This time they are trying the same end run but it seems that there is bipartisan opposition. Which will change once Obama opens the doors to the money. Deals will be made and the democrats will come in line just as they did with Obamacare.