Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.You already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.
As the world's largest single market, we have tremendous leverage on the actions of other nations that want to trade with US, which is nearly all of them.
We ARE losing more than we gain. That's why we have had so much wage stagnation over the last 50 years.
Cheap labor is no good if the market nations are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and start slapping tariffs on exports made with cheap labor.
We have been negotiating and signing trade agreements without any true thought of how they will ultimately effect that US.
And they have been causing more problems than help.
The GOP platform plank on trade, 2012:
On Free Trade: Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority
International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.
We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.
So you'd rather a candidate that never changes his or her mind,,that doesn't take advantage of new information? Trump changes his mind sometimes twice in a day and you really want him to get his ""big"" hands on our nukes?? Really?“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”
It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.
Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).
–
You already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
“An extreme example [of trade protectionism] admittedly, but the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that increased US import duties by as much as 50% was extremely bearish for risk,” Harnett observed. “In a world today devoid of corporate confidence trade tariffs, capital controls, border controls are unlikely to engender risk-seeking behavior on Wall Street, though Main Street may temporarily benefit.”
It would be an understatement to say there were a lot of other things going on in the late 1920s and early 1930s that contributed to the downturn in the markets and economy. But almost everyone agrees that the tariffs only made things worse.
Hartnett note that trade protectionism is bearish for stocks (^GSPC), while bullish for gold (GLD).
–
You already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
Republicans have it over Dems in bashing ,,,,,,,,,,that's allYou already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
On trade, I trust Democrats in Congress more than Republicans.
The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.
As the world's largest single market, we have tremendous leverage on the actions of other nations that want to trade with US, which is nearly all of them.
We ARE losing more than we gain. That's why we have had so much wage stagnation over the last 50 years.
Cheap labor is no good if the market nations are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and start slapping tariffs on exports made with cheap labor.
We have been negotiating and signing trade agreements without any true thought of how they will ultimately effect that US.
And they have been causing more problems than help.
The GOP platform plank on trade, 2012:
On Free Trade: Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority
International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.
We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.
Mitt Romney was the GOP candidate then. That was his platform. He lost.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP candidate now. HIs platform is pretty much the opposite.
You seem to be against both of them, even though they are opposites.
Can you explain that to me?
-------------------------------- He has worked hard selling out the USA , giving favors and showing his fambly the world at public expense . He , his kids and old lady will be the next buncha elites that will control your grandchildrens lives Eddie !!Blues You calling Obama lazy is nutz He's worked harder visited more countries made more friends gave the world more confidence ,than any republican president in my memory and I've been around a few years-------------------------------- I'd say that mrobama is an enemy of America that has had a plan that he has been working on his entire 8 years .Trump is a circus sideshow, with many popcorn-eaters.From Patriot News Daily
Speaking at a press conference in Ise City, Japan on Thursday, President Obama said that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was causing a lot of consternation among world leaders. Answering a question about Trump at the G-7 Summit, Obama said many international leaders were “surprised” by some of the billionaire’s comments in recent months.
“They’re rattled by it,” Obama said, “and for good reason. Because a lot of the proposals that he’s made display either ignorance of world affairs or a cavalier attitude or an interest in getting tweets and headlines instead of actually thinking through what it is that is required to keep America safe and secure and prosperous, and what’s required to keep the world on an even keel.”
Now, the left-wing press is regarding this as some monumental moment in American history. The sitting president of the United States, on foreign soil, taking shots at his potential successor that question his very competence? Even for presidents who regularly blur the line between professionalism and partisanship, this was a rare break with tradition. It must show just how deeply Obama is concerned about a President Trump.
“President Obama’s public disparagement […] obliterated the now-quaint political convention that partisanship stops at the water’s edge,” wrote the New York Times. “It also revealed a stark truth: The world is worried about Trump.”
- See more at: PatriotNewsDaily.com » Obama Warns of Donald Trump’s “Ignorance”
He's as thoughtless as Obama is thoughtful.
Obama is a retard.
No, he's a lazy do nothing who went on the public dole because he didn't want to work a real job. People give that idiot WAY more credit than he's earned, trust me the guy is a lazy asshole slacker.
Instead of the world looking up to America republicans have gotten us the opposite affect The world looks down upon us Repub liars and misfits are the causeThere was a time when debate about political issues ended at the shore line but Obama has no respect for the Constitution or tradition or common sense. It's disrespectful to air America's political laundry in a foreign country but Barry Hussein acts like a foreigner even when he is home. All the democrat party has left is a lame duck president who is always on a world apology tour.
The US can control what they do about free trade but they cannot control what the rest of the world does.The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
As we put tariffs on so will other nations on our goods into their countries. We do not want to lose more business than we gain.
Foreign countries will continue to use the cheaper labor available in the world. Will the US products be competitively priced as a result.
Eliminating trade agreements without true thought of how they will ultimately effect the US could cause more problems for the US economy than help.
As the world's largest single market, we have tremendous leverage on the actions of other nations that want to trade with US, which is nearly all of them.
We ARE losing more than we gain. That's why we have had so much wage stagnation over the last 50 years.
Cheap labor is no good if the market nations are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and start slapping tariffs on exports made with cheap labor.
We have been negotiating and signing trade agreements without any true thought of how they will ultimately effect that US.
And they have been causing more problems than help.
The GOP platform plank on trade, 2012:
On Free Trade: Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority
International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.
We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.
Mitt Romney was the GOP candidate then. That was his platform. He lost.
Donald Trump is going to be the GOP candidate now. HIs platform is pretty much the opposite.
You seem to be against both of them, even though they are opposites.
Can you explain that to me?
Trump can't be trusted one day to the next on the issues. Hillary has her baggage.
Trump's baggage is that the mainstream of the GOP is still free trade and his election keeps them in power.
So you'd rather a candidate that never changes his or her mind,,that doesn't take advantage of new information? Trump changes his mind sometimes twice in a day and you really want him to get his ""big"" hands on our nukes?? Really?You already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
You already made that point, and I already responded to it.
Are you happy with the Wage stagnation of the last 50 years?
Are you happy with the shrinking and squeezing of the Middle Class?
The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
On trade, I trust Democrats in Congress more than Republicans.
With Libiterrians taking votes from dump and sanders eventually leaving the fray giving hill another 3-5% jump over dump I don't think either of us should continue worrying about the presidency Better off worrying about the senate nowSo you'd rather a candidate that never changes his or her mind,,that doesn't take advantage of new information? Trump changes his mind sometimes twice in a day and you really want him to get his ""big"" hands on our nukes?? Really?The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
Trump put this issue front and center and built his campaign on it.
Hillary changed her position because her opponent was getting good response on his platform.
Trump is more invested in this position than Hillary is, and thus more credible.
Trump will do nothing with nukes, just like every other President since Truman.
Indeed, with his hands off approach to Russia, Trump is the peace-nik Candidate, relatively speaking.
What issues?? didn't he say everything was just ""suggestions""The GOP is the free trade party. The GOP is the anti-union party. The GOP is in no way the party of trying to raise wages for the working class.
The last major Dem player who was anti-"free trade" was Dick Gephardt, and he was crushed like a bug in the democratic primaries by Bill Clinton who went on to sign NAFTA.
Today, Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP candidate for the Presidency and he has built his campaign around policies designed to raise wages for the working class.
If you support the "Free Trade" we have had, that you call republican polices, that has lowed wages for the working class, all you have to do is vote for Hillary.
I understand your difficulty in dealing with this. Change is hard.
Can you adapt?
First of all I don't support Hillary Clinton.
Second of all most Democrats voted against NAFTA.
From on the issues.
Hillary Clinton on Free Trade
From 2014
"Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.
Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband's presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history."
From oct 2015
"Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not."
Mmm, something caused her to change her stance.
What could it be?
Donald Trump is the one that made Trade one of the major issues in this campaign. Hillary moved TOWARDS Trump on this one to head off losses among the "populist dems".
You trust her change of heart?
On trade, I trust Democrats in Congress more than Republicans.
I was asking about Trump vs Hillary. Since Trump is the Thread Topic.
That you responded to a question I didn't answer is very interesting.
I think what is says is that you know that Trump is closer to you on these issues, but that you can't bring yourself to admit that, perhaps not even, or especially to yourself.
Your partisanship is blinding you.
