Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:33am PT
|
Craig,
President Clinton signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993.
Edit: Back in '93, I was initially against NAFTA. When I saw Bush, Carter and Ford all supporting it, I changed my opinion.
How did NAFTA become so undesirable? Just about every study I've seen shows it's been beneficial to the US.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:37am PT
|
There are two more debates. Assuming he doesn't chicken out, there is plenty of time for her to nail him on other low hanging fruit such as the trump foundation or trump university. She can only cram in so much in a 90 minute debate. Anyway, with trump there is a good chance a few other fiascos will emerge in the meantime that will also provide material for her.
She did well. She put him on the defensive for the next several days and now exudes a confidence we haven't seen for awhile. She was the serious adult interviewing for the most important job in the world, standing next to a petulant, bullying adolescent.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:40am PT
|
Yet will anyone be surprised when Trump brings up NAFTA yet again in the next debate? Sheesh.
Actually I'll be looking forward to it. 😃
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:40am PT
|
Listening to Hillary lecture about computer security was a f*#king laugh, I have to admit.
Lol, yeah, trump could have had some fun with that, had he actually prepared for the debate.
|
|
nita
Social climber
chica de chico, I don't claim to be a daisy.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:41am PT
|
*
*
She was the serious adult interviewing for the most important job in the world, standing next to a petulant, bullying adolescent.
+1
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:41am PT
|
I loved watching her at the debate
the way should try and hold back a snicker after every ridiculous thing the idiot would say, and how she wouldn't let his constant interrupting ruffle her
Just like I love watching Michelle and Barack Obama speak
They exude empathy and well focused passion
Complete Statemen
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:42am PT
|
The much maligned status quo has been good to me and mine. I'm not a defensive white male who is unable to stomach a little criticism, I don't have some moral schlong I want to shove down your throat, my career is providing me a very livable wage, I don't feel like a piggy entitled to every single centavo I earn because I understand there is such a thing as a common good, and I'm not going to heel to the boss man's dog whistle just so he and his entitled progeny can live off the lard of their greasy little brand name.
Nawmean?
Yeah, we get it. The dog whistle you respond to is just a different pitch is all.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:45am PT
|
President Clinton wasn't President on December 8, 1993
Actually, he was. Clinton was elected in November, 1992, and took office in January, 1993.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:46am PT
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:35am PT
Sketch
President Clinton wasn't President on December 8, 1993
The Trolls Heads are Exploding!!
No kidding?
Who was President on that date?
|
|
nita
Social climber
chica de chico, I don't claim to be a daisy.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 08:55am PT
|
*
Dan Rather's words .. 9/26/ 2016
Ladies and gentlemen, whatever civility once existed in our politics is tonight officially dead. Never in the history of televised debates have we witnessed such a show. And that’s what the Donald wanted. A show. He got it, but will he be seen as the hero or the villain?
If you are a fan of Hillary Clinton, I suspect you are thrilled with her poised and confident performance. Perhaps her crowning line was “I prepared for this debate and I'm prepared to be President”. If you are a fan of Donald Trump, his quarrelsome, no-holds-barred approach, often facts be damned, will likely in turn have thrilled you. The question is what does everybody else watching think and how many impressionable voters remain?
Taking a snapshot of the debate stage this evening, two candidates behind podiums, each representing one of the major political parties, it would seem to be the latest chapter in our quadrennial dance with democracy. But experiencing the event, in sound and motion, it was of course anything but.
From the very beginning, the body language tonight was striking. HIllary Clinton, the first woman ever to be on this stage was calm and substantive. Donald Trump interrupted often and slouched and sneered as he turned to address her. This is what Trump’s fans like about him, playing the alpha male at all costs. Clinton seemed completely unflustered, which is what her fans love about her. How this all plays to the majority of viewers and voters at home will be in the eyes of the beholder.
But I was surprised by how much this man who has made so much of the means of television spent not looking into the camera, but preoccupied with his adversary. Trump came across as amped, a pacing tiger ready to pounce on every answer. His Interruptions suggests little regard to the rules. He’s itching for a fight...Wants to swing wildly.
At one point early in the debate Clinton, after multiple factually questionable assertions by Trump said, "I have a feeling by the end of this debate I'll be blamed for everything that ever happened," Clinton said. Trump replied, “Why not?” That about summed it up.
Clinton clearly wanted to get under Trump’s skin. She attacked him for getting a hefty amount of money from his dad, challenging the narrative that he was a self-made man. And then attacking his business practices. The headline she was aiming for is Donald the Deadbeat. And then on the issue of Trump’s unreleased tax returns, when Clinton says that was because he may not have paid any taxes, Trump responded, “that makes me smart.” Expect to hear more about this.
Clinton was clearly the policy expert, nimbly jumping from topic to topic, policy to policy. But she was also much more able to paint a big picture than I have seen in times past. I thought she was particularly effective on the issue of race and especially the birther lie against President Obama. She had the facts on her side, but also it was an effective appeal to fire up her base.
In the end, more than all of the specifics, I was struck by how unprecedented was the overall tenor - matching that of the campaign. We once held certain truths to be "self-evident" - that "all men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These were the lofty ideals that served as a rallying cry for the founders of these United States to choose liberty over tyranny. The man who wrote these words, Thomas Jefferson, and his compatriots were imperfect and in some cases deeply flawed men. Yet their idealism fixed a North Star in our democratic firmament that has guided our ship of state ever since, with some very noted moral detours. Now I fear that the tide of progress is rapidly receding with the fierce undertow of a looming tsunami.
Our Founders believed in reason and the power of intellect. Donald Trump made clear tonight by his wilful ignorance of important issues that he does not. Our founders feared the accumulation of power, they loathed vanity, and tried to build in protections against the demagogues who would appeal to mankind's basest instincts. Donald Trump relishes in all of these impulses. For him they are instinctual and a prescription for success.
To call Trump a con man, as many have, is a disservice to the art of the con. By its definition a con requires deceit. But Trump has not tried to hide his lies or the sheer unrealistic audacity of his cartoonish policy positions. He has asked the American people to bet on him. The fact checkers will certainly weigh in. The pundits will have their say. But the voters have all the information they need. The judgement is in their - or more accurately our - hands.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:01am PT
|
President Clinton signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993.
Troll
WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGgggggggggg
The bill was signed by Bush on December 17, 1992
Clinton wasn't the President then
Read the Damn Facts
How many Dems voted for it?
Very Few
It's a Republican policy, end of debate
They want to globalize our economy, not Dems.
Trolls heads are Exploding!!!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:04am PT
|
"After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994."
Wiki
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:07am PT
|
Bush signs North American trade pact
December 18, 1992
|By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation.
Mr. Clinton, in a statement issued in Little Rock, Ark., said the signing represented "an important step" toward the economic integration of North America. He repeated his campaign assertion that there would have to be new job and environmental protections, and safeguards against sudden trade "surges," but these could be settled without renegotiating the treaty with Mexico and Canada before he submitted implementing legislation.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton
Clinton signed the renegotiated NAFTA in 1993
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:07am PT
|
I remember when clinton signed it. I watched live news coverage with my ex.
Anyway, Hillary basically owned it on behalf of her husband the other night so I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:09am PT
|
Clinton signed the RENEGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENEGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENEGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENEGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Bush signed the original NAFTA in 1992
Bush signed the original NAFTA
Bush signed the original NAFTA
Bush signed the original NAFTA
Thank God Clinton renegotiated it, it was probably packed with Republican give aways to CEOs waiting to move their factory over the borders
EDIT: note to self - spellcheck doesn't work on all caps
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:17am PT
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:09am PT
Clinton signed the RENGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Clinton signed the RENGOTIATED NAFTA in 1993
Oh my. Did you forget your meds, again?
The NAFTA bill, that was ratified by Congress, was signed into law by President Clinton.
Why is this such a big deal to you? Do you think it was a bad agreement?
Edit: It's renegotiated.
2nd edit:
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:24am PT
|
It was a Republican agreement
End of Debate
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:26am PT
|
It is a big deal, Dirtbag, only because Trump kept bringing it up time and again as a very negative Democrat / Clinton thing. When clearly Republicans had a lot to do with its development.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:28am PT
|
Fact Checker
NAFTA signed by Bush
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/
The Facts
NAFTA was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. (Here’s a photo.) Moreover, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the deal, as the trade pact was vehemently opposed by labor unions. One key ally for Clinton was then-House Minority Whip (and later House speaker) Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who is said to be on Trump’s list of possible running mates.
NAFTA was a successor to a free-trade pact with Canada. Bush had viewed NAFTA as a political opportunity, an achievement for his reelection campaign. He initialed the deal on Aug. 12, 1992, before the GOP convention, and then formally signed it in December 1992, after he had lost the election to Clinton.
Clinton had supported the pact during the presidential campaign but said he wanted to negotiate side agreements with Mexico concerning enforcement of labor and environmental laws. He didn’t pursue ratification in Congress till after those agreements were reached in August 1993 — but the deals were denounced by labor and environmental groups as too weak.
The two top Democrats, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.) and House Majority Whip David Bonior (Mich.), opposed it. In the House, NAFTA passed 234-200; 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted in favor of it. The Senate approved NAFTA 61-38, with the backing of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
In both the House and the Senate, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it — a signal that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party was strong even then. Clinton held a signing ceremony for the implementing legislation on Dec. 3, 1993, flanked by former presidents and congressional leaders of both parties. But that’s not the same as negotiating and signing the treaty with Mexico and Canada. The trade agreement went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2016 - 09:38am PT
|
I get that HFCS, but it's also part of Clinton's legacy. I'm not sure why there is debate about that.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!