Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 35 of 46
Trying to follow her many reversals will make you dizzy!
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-time
line-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
1993: NAFTA Dec 8 1993 Signed into law by President Bill Clinton
Takes effect Jan. 1, 1994.
1996: NAFTA pro
"I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth." (March 6, 1996: At an event for the UNITE union at the Nicole Miller company in New York.)
1998: NAFTA pro
"Now again, I have to conclude that either American business doesn't care about opening markets around the world — Now when the President comes back to the Congress with a request for fast track authority I hope that American business voices will be heard. Having said that, I would add that there does need to be sensitivity to worker and environmental concerns in trade agreements going forward in the future. So I think that there may be some good reason for business to engage early with labor and with political leadership in Congress and the Administration ... but certainly that will not happen in the absence of some very stated and obvious business concern." (Feb. 2, 1998: Remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.)
2000: NAFTA blame-shifting
"What happened to NAFTA, I think, was we inherited an agreement that we didn't get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion." (March 26, 2000: Before the Working Families Party, per Clinton 2008 campaign.)
2003: NAFTA blame-shifting
"Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal." (From Clinton's first memoir, Living History. She was arguing that the Clinton administration could do both health care and NAFTA at once, but Bill Clinton and his advisers did not think so.)
2003: United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement yea
Voted in favor of Singapore free-trade agreement. (July 31, 2003)
2003: United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) yea
Voted in favor of Chilean free-trade agreement. (July 31, 2003)
2004: NAFTA blame-Canada!
"I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada." (Jan. 5, 2004: Via teleconference.)
2004: United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) yea
Voted in favor of Australian free-trade agreement. (July 15, 2004)
2004: United States-Morocco FTA yea
Voted in favor of Morocco free-trade agreement. (July 21, 2004)
2005: CAFTA nay
Voted against CAFTA. (July 1, 2005)
2006: United States-Oman FTA yea
Voted in favor of Oman free-trade agreement. (June 29, 2006)
2007: NAFTA outright lie, Bill Clinton could have vetoed it
"NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration." (Feb. 1, 2007: Time interview.)
2007: U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement anti
"While I value the strong relationship the United States enjoys with South Korea, I believe that this agreement is inherently unfair. It will hurt the U.S. auto industry, increase our trade deficit, cost us good middle-class jobs and make America less competitive." (June 9, 2007: Clinton before AFL-CIO confederation.)
2007: United States - Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA) pro
"I support the trade agreement with Peru." (Clinton campaign statement, 11/8/2007) (Though she voiced support for the Peru deal, she did not vote on it. There was a Democratic primary debate the day it was voted on.)
2007: NAFTA equivocal (it's not bad, it just wasn't done the right way)
"Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped, and so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we're going to have trade relations that are smart..." (Nov. 15, 2007: During a CNN debate)
2008: NAFTA anti
"NAFTA was ne
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, this is from the draft platform:
On the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), there are a diversity of views in the party. Many Democrats are on record stating that the agreement does not meet the standards set out in this platform; other Democrats have expressed support for the agreement.
You tell 'em Hillary! You have the American workers' backs on this !
Over the past three decades, America has signed too many trade deals that have not lived up to the hype. Trade deals often boosted the profits of large corporations, while at the same time failing to protect workers’ rights, labor standards, the environment, and public health.
And J.O.B.S. Hillary? What about them? Are they something you care to address?
Any future trade agreements must make sure that our trading partners cannot undercut American workers by taking shortcuts on labor policy or the environment.
What about PAST agreements, Hillary? And what about J.O.B.S. Hillary? Are you avoiding the topic, Hillary?
You can read more non-statements about American jobs and 'free' trade agreements in the draft platform, already posted here.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah second, I can see Hillary really connecting with the American worker with her strong pro-jobs positions, especially when it comes to 'free' trade agreements!
/sarcasm
Yanno second, as an obvious supporter of the 1%, I really do think your signature should be 'Let them eat cake'.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know KIKI has already pointed this out but it just amazes me, SECOND, that you can quote Hillary extensively, in which she lies her way form beginning to end as if this were some sort of positive defense!
Quote:Which one? Seems like she voted for quite a few!
1) What is Hillary's position on TPP?
Hillary: I oppose CAFTA & TPP, but global economy needs trade
CLINTON: I voted for "a"
Quote:She was for it, right up until Sanders made an issue of it. Then, with Sanders and MOST Democrats against the TPP, she wrestled a compromise statement into the platform respecting the "diversity" of opinions. Hillary, as far as I can tell, is the only "diverse" opinion.
multinational trade agreements, but I opposed CAFTA because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America. I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, I was holding out hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it.
Quote:Huh??? You don't compete "and win" in the global economy by coddling your workers or by providing "better education", you win in the global economy by driving and paying your workers as if they were donkeys, or by out-automating other nations. The room for high-tech exports is very limited.
I have a very clear view. We have to trade with the rest of the world. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We have to trade with the other 95 percent. And trade has to be reciprocal. That's the way the global economy works. But we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy.
Quote:Bull.Shit.
I absorbed new info and changed my mind to oppose TPP
Quote:
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.
Quote:And my campaign, and my unfavorability ratings.
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.
Quote:WHOSE gold standard, Hillary? Hollywood's? Microsoft's? Google's? Goldman Sachs?
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.
Quote:It's already been signed by several nations. What a load of hogwash.
It was just finally negotiated last week,
Quote:
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.
So, what IS Hillary's position on the TPP? Basically, she's for it because that's what her donors are for. But it's a weight on her campaign so she's going to shuck and jive about it until after she's elected.
Quote:She voted for it. End of story. AND, she hasn't learned from it either, because she was willing to repeat the mistake in Libya and Syria.
2) What is Hillary’s position on the Iraq War?
What an evil lying bitch. Anyone who believes her deserves the nuclear armageddon that she seems so eager to provoke. (I point to her most recent accusation against Russia "hacking" her party's servers in order to help Trump. She lacks a sense of proportion, as well as a sense of reality, but this is fully in line with her previous actions as Scy State.)
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale abo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My signature should be: Obama gave a speech at the Democratic Convention where he said that he has a legacy to protect, but it’s not one he can protect by taking victory laps. If Clinton loses — especially to Donald Trump — that legacy could be essentially erased.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yeah second, I can see Hillary really connecting with the American worker with her strong pro-jobs positions /sarcasm
Yanno second, as an obvious supporter of the 1%, I really do think your signature should be 'Let them eat cake'.
Today’s Republican Party is committed to:
1.) Rollback of all of Obama’s new financial regulations.
2.) Rollback of all of Obama’s new environmental regulations.
3.) Repeal of his signature health care law.
4.) Reducing federal taxes down to a level below where they were when he took office.
5.) Block-granting Medicaid and food stamps in a way that would put them on the same road to extinction that made welfare reform into a failure.
There is every reason to believe that an ideologically emboldened Republican Party congressional majority would, in fact, do these things and that a newly elected Donald Trump would work with them to make it happen.
www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12303476/obama-democratic-convention-speech
But I don't think I will change my old signature. It is still useful. Did you know that you could go to the URL in my signature and download the Serenity comics that were issued for free?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did I mention that Hillary is more honest than Trump? Details of every lie and half-truth are just a click away:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I know KIKI has already pointed this out but it just amazes me, SECOND, that you can quote Hillary extensively, in which she lies her way form beginning to end as if this were some sort of positive defense!
www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Bernie is our reference point. All truths are measured from where Bernie stands.
www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In-between I stopped off at TPP and Hillary's position on the Iraq war, and ended up with her using an allegation against Russia because her campaign is faltering. None of which you've ever addressed. And I'm sure you never will.
You go from her email being hacked to "nuclear armageddon." I bet you're a lot of fun on road trips.
But, yanno, here's your oppty to prove me wrong, GSTRING. Tell me about Hillary and her opposition to the TPP, and how she was all against our wars in the mideast, and how she doesn't let internal politics sway her relations with nuclear-armed foreign nations. I dare you!
.....
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Today’s Republican Party is committed to"
And strangely enough, not a word about what Hilary could do to improve her poll numbers. Shall I repeat myself, second-rate?
PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH TRUMP. AND THEY DON'T CARE.
Because more than anything else, they're just tired of being sold a load of empty hope and change - even democrats, even independents.
So you can lambaste Trump for all the good it will do (none), and you can cross your fingers and hope that Clinton will eke out a few more voters than Trump for all the good your finger-crossing will do (none), or you can acknowledge that Clinton has serious self-inflicted weakness in her campaign and try to work - through letters and opinion pieces - to get her campaign to change its positions. What's that you say, second-rate? Clinton's campaign won't change because of what the people want? Well then, her stubbornness IS a problem! And she WILL have to carry those anti-worker pro-war targets around on her back.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know what I get out of server-gate, and TPP-gate and DNC-gate, and Iraq-Libya-Ukraine-Syria-fail, second-rate?
It's that Hillary makes very bad decisions and then lies about them. But not just to us (and there's ample evidence she's lied repeatedly about all of those), she also lies to herself. And that keeps her from learning useful lessons about what went wrong. So you see her recreating the same disasters over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... ad infinitum.
She voted for the Iraq War. But even after seeing the clusterfuck it became, she decided to reprise the US position in Libya, and Ukraine, and Syria.
And after seeing what a clusterfuck NAFTA was, even as she was trying to weasel her way out of being associated with it, she endorsed the TTP.
And after server-gate, rather than learn the vital lesson about computer security, she recreated the problems with the DNC ... and then blamed Putin and Trump for her own stupidity.
What ** I ** get from all this is that she's even stupider than Trump, and lies about internationally important things like trade treaties, and war, and US national security.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW Bill going over to chat with AG Lynch was a very slick move. Because normally it would have been Lynch deciding whether or not to move forward with a prosecution. But Bill put her in a position to look like she would have a conflict of interest, and like she wouldn't be able to render a fair decision. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill even explained to her the political benefits of that extended chat, to wit, having to make a subordinate - in this case Comey - do what was politically necessary, while keeping her hands clean.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME