What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Godsbrother said:
The truth of the matter is that NAFTA was a mixed bag and it is really difficult to determine whether the effect was a net good or bad verses what would have happened without it.  

The problem is that it is such a complex issue that you could never adequately discuss the matter in a 2 minute sound bite and even if you could it wouldn't matter.   Trump has convinced his supporters that NAFTA was the worst trade agreement in history just by saying it -- he doesn't need to provide any real data.
Click to expand...
Besides it very quickly becomes a matter of faith in terms of what would have happened if it hadn't been signed (Trump: America would be Greater than now, Clinton: Auto job losses and closed factories anyway due to lack of competitiveness)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.

That's key, because we know from experience, and of course research proves it, that respecting workers' rights leads to positive long-term economic outcomes, better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions. And including everybody in that, those who have been previously left out of the formal economy will help build a strong middle class, not only here in Australia or in our country, but across Asia. And that will be good for us.

If we do this right, and that's what we're trying to do, then globalization, which is inevitable, can become a race to the top with rising standards of living and more broadly shared prosperity. Now, this is what I call jobs diplomacy, and that's what I've been focused on in part as Secretary of State. And that's one of the reasons that I wanted to come here to Adelaide and come to this impressive facility.
Click to expand...
- Hillary Clinton, 2012.

To me this is like her policy on Iraq. Nothing changed on her policy on the Iraq War. If presented with the same 'facts' (say Iran) she would do the exact same thing. She is an interventionist. And on trade Hillary is a globalist. Regardless of how you look at the facts of TPP and whether she has any specific objection to any specific provisions (she doesn't from what I can tell, like Iraq it became unpopular, that's pretty much it) she very much believes in the policy. Hillary negotiated trade deals with Colombia, Panama, Vietnam and Korea. The TPP is completely consistent with that record and really Hillary considered it to be the crown jewel in the Clinton legacy beginning with NAFTA. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her husband's which would signify any legitimate or real objection to anything in TPP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saint's, under which terms do you want the US to trade with the rest of the world?

You should bear in mind that any restrictions you put on imports is likely to be mirrored on your exports.

And also that your voters like low prices a lot.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I thought the TPP was the one moment where Trump almost won the debate.  He had her on the ropes, and should have kept pressing her on acknowledging "Obama is wrong" on this issue.  He pushed her to the brink, but stopped short of pushing her over.  That was his one moment to really punish her, and he missed his chance to get that soundbite. 
Click to expand...
Man, you must have been sooo close to climax, too.

 
msommer said:
Saint's, under which terms do you want the US to trade with the rest of the world?

You should bear in mind that any restrictions you put on imports is likely to be mirrored on your exports.

And also that your voters like low prices a lot.
Click to expand...
My feeling about the TPP really has three concerns: one is free speech conventions in which the US may be submitting itself to international law, which primarily affects what goes on on the internet, another has to do with the IP provisions affecting the cost and innovation of pharmaceuticals and manufacturing, but also in terms of the US government telling the truth about who is going to be put out of work. I realize other jobs might be created in other sectors, but people should be specifically told how many are expected to be put out of work and in which sectors and which sectors will instead profit. I have never gotten the sense that any of these things are of any concern to Hillary. The IP provisions for sure were already in place during her time, that's not a bug, that's a feature of the deal.

But I don't have a problem with free trade. I'm probably for it, just as I'm pro-EU and pro-Nato, I'm an institutionalist. But I'm also a process guy, and I think that telling people the full unvarnished truth about landscape changing deals like this prevent shocks down the road, which leads to movements like those by Sanders and Trump (two totally different things but both have some roots in the disruptions caused in part by Nafta). Tell the people what is going to happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
My reasoning isn't all that complex. I want more markets for our exports. I want more imports and cheaper prices. Both are key to economic growth, which is the key to almost everything else and worth the price IMO. 
Click to expand...
What markets aren't open to our exports?  Other than N. Korea, that is.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
My feeling about the TPP really has three concerns: one is free speech conventions in which the US may be submitting itself to international law, which primarily affects what goes on on the internet, another has to do with the IP provisions affecting the cost and innovation of pharmaceuticals and manufacturing, but also in terms of the US government telling the truth about who is going to be put out of work. I realize other jobs might be created in other sectors, but people should be specifically told how many are expected to be put out of work and in which sectors and which sectors will instead profit. I have never gotten the sense that any of these things are of any concern to Hillary. The IP provisions for sure were already in place during her time, that's not a bug, that's a feature of the deal.

But I don't have a problem with free trade. I'm probably for it, just as I'm pro-EU and pro-Nato, I'm an institutionalist. But I'm also a process guy, and I think that telling people the full unvarnished truth about landscape changing deals like this prevent shocks down the road, which leads to movements like those by Sanders and Trump (two totally different things but both have some roots in the disruptions caused in part by Nafta). Tell the people what is going to happen.
Click to expand...
In Europe the critics of TTIP (the European version of TPP) voice concerns that US regulations are not nearly as restrictive as those in the EU and will lead to untold calamities. See any similarities?

 
Sand said:
What markets aren't open to our exports?  Other than N. Korea, that is.
Click to expand...
EU for instance because your standards are too low

(I'm only half kidding)

ETA: Principally, food safety, chemicals and GMO are the main points (there is also serious concerns over data rights but that is not really a market thing)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
In Europe the critics of TTIP (the European version of TPP) voice concerns that US regulations are not nearly as restrictive as those in the EU and will lead to untold calamities. See any similarities?
Click to expand...
Sure, but also see Brexit, where some places like England proper chafed at what they felt were those same (in the proponents' opinion) overly restrictive regulations. Disruptions in trade cause social problems even if they are on the whole good or profitable. Social disruptions lead to even bigger problems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course like all policy discussions in this election, with Trump it's pointless. He's an elephant in a china shop (pun there...). He's to the left of Sanders: break Nafta, cancel all TPP negotiations, probably end other trade deals like we have with a myriad of countries. Not to mention, impose tariffs. The disruption from trade with a Trump at the helm would be potentially tectonic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sure, but also see Brexit, where some places like England proper chafed at what they felt were those same (in the proponents' opinion) overly restrictive regulations. Disruptions in trade cause social problems even if they are on the whole good or profitable. Social disruptions lead to even bigger problems.
Click to expand...
IMHO Brexit was caused by pure unadultered fear mongering and it will bite the UK very, very hard in the patooty come 2019.

One of the effective attack adds for the Brexit campaign was stating that there were 109 EU rules concerning pillows. IIRC 95 of those turned out to only use the word pillow, not actually regulate it, and the majority of the rest were not restrictive to the UK pillow industry at all, some had actually been put in place at the behest of UK. To make things even worse, the UK leaving EU would not actually make things easier for the UK industry, because they would still need to follow the EU regulations in place to export there.

So stupid

 
msommer said:
IMHO Brexit was caused by pure unadultered fear mongering and it will bite the UK very, very hard in the patooty come 2019.

One of the effective attack adds for the Brexit campaign was stating that there were 109 EU rules concerning pillows. IIRC 95 of those turned out to only use the word pillow, not actually regulate it, and the majority of the rest were not restrictive to the UK pillow industry at all, some had actually been put in place at the behest of UK. To make things even worse, the UK leaving EU would not actually make things easier for the UK industry, because they would still need to follow the EU regulations in place to export there.

So stupid
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I agree with you on every point about Brexit and I'm pro-EU. My point just has to do with the inevitable social disruptions caused by trade deals. Even though created for the larger good and maybe even effecting larger good they cause changes in employment and society. We could say well people are irrational and do stupid things, yeah but when they get angry and act irrationally there is typically still a reason for it, like shifts in unemployment in certain regions or sectors. Politicians think Big Things and say 'well ok we will just move these x hundred thousand to this sector, and then this region will lose jobs but this region will gain jobs, and we will just train this next generation in this county/province for this new sector and it's all zero sum, you see'.... for people on the ground living their lives, that's life altering and generation affecting stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best argument I've ever heard for NAFTA, and for free trade in general, came from, of all people, Al Gore in a 1993 debate with Ross Perot on the Larry King show. Gore, liberal and left wing Democrat that he is, gave a great defense of capitalism and trade that should be revered by economic conservatives for all time. I always thought it was his best political performance. Does anybody else remember this? 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm pretty sure I agree with you on every point about Brexit and I'm pro-EU. My point just has to do with the inevitable social disruptions caused by trade deals. Even though created for the larger good and maybe even effecting larger good they cause changes in employment and society. We could say well people are irrational and do stupid things, yeah but when they get angry and act irrationally there is typically a reason for it, like shifts in unemployment in certain regions or sectors. Politicians think Big Things and say 'well ok we will just move these x hundred thousand to this sector, and then this region will lose jobs but this region will gain jobs, and we will just train this next generation in this county/province for this new sector and it's all zero sum, you see'.... for people on the ground living their lives, that's life altering and generation affecting stuff.
Click to expand...
I don't think the politicians actually know the potential real life effects of any of their policies on a national, much less a global scale. And even less if you put a timescale on it like we've had with NAFTA. I think they act on one or more of

1) What will get me re-elected next time (opinion polls, local or national),

2) Partly line (wat position improves my internal standings in the party - in the case of Brexit Boris was clearly making a power grab on behalf of a faction that is now more or less without influence outside of getting Brexit to happen)

3) Idealism (a distant third, but they exist)

In terms of 1) most of them will avoid saying anything about negatives about any 2) (or 3)) decision they make or are pressured to make 

 
timschochet said:
The best argument I've ever heard for NAFTA, and for free trade in general, came from, of all people, Al Gore in a 1993 debate with Ross Perot on the Larry King show. Gore, liberal and left wing Democrat that he is, gave a great defense of capitalism and trade that should be revered by economic conservatives for all time. I always thought it was his best political performance. Does anybody else remember this? 
Click to expand...
What was his argument?

 
msommer said:
I don't think the politicians actually know the potential real life effects of any of their policies on a national, much less a global scale. And even less if you put a timescale on it like we've had with NAFTA. I think they act on one or more of

1) What will get me re-elected next time (opinion polls, local or national),

2) Partly line (wat position improves my internal standings in the party - in the case of Brexit Boris was clearly making a power grab on behalf of a faction that is now more or less without influence outside of getting Brexit to happen)

3) Idealism (a distant third, but they exist)

In terms of 1) most of them will avoid saying anything about negatives about any 2) (or 3)) decision they make or are pressured to make 
Click to expand...
I agree with that, I will just say about your first para I think they do know about what sectors will see laborers who will likely be put out of work, and they know which sectors will gain. They calculate all that when putting these things together at the top level.

 
@timschochet

Okay, I give, I distrust that woman but you vote Johnson for me and I will plug my nose and.......I can't even type it.   I will back/vote for Obama's democratic opponent from 2008.

 
renesauz said:
Wait...we're calling "weeks away" a lie when the timeline was estimated 3 months?

Can we apply the same standard of what constitutes a lie to Trump? Because that would beak the internet. Hell..it''s a stretch to call it a stretch!
Click to expand...
Actually it wasn't 3 months either as clearly pointed out in the post I made refuting her points.

 
timschochet said:
The best argument I've ever heard for NAFTA, and for free trade in general, came from, of all people, Al Gore in a 1993 debate with Ross Perot on the Larry King show. Gore, liberal and left wing Democrat that he is, gave a great defense of capitalism and trade that should be revered by economic conservatives for all time. I always thought it was his best political performance. Does anybody else remember this? 
Click to expand...
I do, yes.  He pretty much dismembered Ross Perot.

 
cstu said:
My economic beliefs are pretty simple:

- let capitalism do what it's good at (with regulation of course)

- use higher taxes from those who most benefit from capitalism to help the people most hurt by capitalism (job retraining, education, etc.)

I'm not anti-unions, they should be allowed to exist just as companies should be able to go anywhere they want to produce their products.  The genie is out of the bottle - either we lead in global production and trade or someone else will.  We can longer pretend we live in a world where we can manufacture everything in the good old USA and still compete. 
Click to expand...
Right to compete with all the people who VAT and tariff our products we have to use people living in squalor. Maybe instead of that we should VAT and tariff because what we are doing now is leaving the next generation worse off than us. All for some Walmart jobs.

 
NCCommish said:
Right to compete with all the people who VAT and tariff our products we have to use people living in squalor. Maybe instead of that we should VAT and tariff because what we are doing now is leaving the next generation worse off than us. All for some Walmart jobs.
Click to expand...
We have a version of the VAT called a sales tax. 

How are people going to get out of squalor without jobs?  By creating high tariffs to prevent American companies from hiring them they will stay in squalor forever. 

The only people in the next generation who are going to be worse off are those to don't get an education.

 
bagger said:
AZ Republic just endorsed Hillary, their first ever endorsement for a Democratic candidate.
Click to expand...
The fact they endorsed her, as opposed to endorsing neither, is a bit surprising frankly. These newspaper endorsements certainly don't carry as much weight as they used to, but AZ is pretty hardcore Republican historically, and yes there are changing demographics there, but it's a pretty surprising endorsement nonetheless. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
The fact they endorsed her, as opposed to endorsing neither, is a bit surprising frankly. These newspaper endorsements certainly don't carry as much weight as they used to, but AZ is pretty hardcore Republican historically, and yes there are changing demographics there, but it's a pretty surprising endorsement nonetheless. 
Click to expand...
It may not have a huge effect like it used to but it has to be a bit of a wake up call for non-extreme Trump supporters.  Maybe they will reconsider their opinion of Trump and vote Gary Johnson or simply stay home.

 
cstu said:
We have a version of the VAT called a sales tax. 

How are people going to get out of squalor without jobs?  By creating high tariffs to prevent American companies from hiring them they will stay in squalor forever. 

The only people in the next generation who are going to be worse off are those to don't get an education.
Click to expand...
Are you living in Narnia? The next generation of Americans as things currently stand will have a lower standard of living than their parents. This is plain fact backed up by numerous studies over the last 10 years.

And no sales tax is not a VAT. it isn't even in the same zip code. I don't pay more sales tax on a product from China than I do on one made in the US.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
The fact they endorsed her, as opposed to endorsing neither, is a bit surprising frankly. These newspaper endorsements certainly don't carry as much weight as they used to, but AZ is pretty hardcore Republican historically, and yes there are changing demographics there, but it's a pretty surprising endorsement nonetheless. 
Click to expand...
Actual conservatives are more horrified by Trump than liberals are. He's pretty much a far-left nutjob from the turn of the previous century economically, and his foreign policy ideas are the exact opposite of the last 20 years of conservative thought.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Actual conservatives are more horrified by Trump than liberals are. He's pretty much a far-left nutjob from the turn of the previous century economically, and his foreign policy ideas are the exact opposite of the last 20 years of conservative thought.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you have the pulse of conservatives now?  With all the fear-mongering and "it's the end of the world" rhetoric coming from the left you actually think conservatives are more horrified?  Please.

Remember the good old days when the American Left accused conservatives of fear mongering all the time?  Yeah, me too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Oh, so you have the pulse of conservatives now?  With all the fear-mongering and "it's the end of the world" rhetoric coming from the left you actually think conservatives are more horrified?  Please.

Remember the good old days when the American Left accused conservatives of fear mongering all the time?  Yeah, me too.
Click to expand...
Guessing you haven't been keeping up with stuff like The National Review or The WSJ, eh? Not surprising -- obviously Breitbart is far more your speed.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well I'm pretty skeptical of WL myself and always have been but I did ask for practical scenarios how Trump could win. That has to be one and it would have to be a doozy. 
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But I think if they had it Monday morning we would have been reading it. That would have been the optimum time as far as exposure and catching Hillary flat footed.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Conclusions can certainly be drawn from your fine work in the political threads here for years.
Click to expand...
You might need to work on some of these conclusions of yours before you post nonsense about knowing what actual Conservatives are thinking.  Better yet, you should probably just stick with what you know which is the fear-mongering and calling opposing thought some kind of "ism".

 
MaxThreshold said:
You might need to work on some of these conclusions of yours before you post nonsense about knowing what actual Conservatives are thinking.  Better yet, you should probably just stick with what you know which is the fear-mongering and calling opposing thought some kind of "ism".
Click to expand...
Yeah, OK guy. Sorry if it bothers you, but the serious conservative media, much of which I do actually bother to read, absolutely can't stand Trump.

 
MaxThreshold said:
You might need to work on some of these conclusions of yours before you post nonsense about knowing what actual Conservatives are thinking.  Better yet, you should probably just stick with what you know which is the fear-mongering and calling opposing thought some kind of "ism".
Click to expand...
To be fair people identified as thought leaders in conservatism have made it pretty clear they can't stand Trump. For his entire run basically. It's the hard core base, that does seem to have some ism problems, that kept Donald in the race.

 
timschochet said:
They did it on The West Wing!

Guess it's not such a good idea. Hope you will vote for her anyway. That goes for you too NC! :)
Click to expand...
Sorry Tim still not happening. I can't vote for someone who is dead set on increasing body bag sales.She and her neocon buddies can hardly wait. I can't vote for someone that I personally think wants to run with her husbands idea to privatize Social Security. His admin spent 18 months studying how to do it. The idea was dropped when the impeachment came up. I think that's why Wall Street lavishes so much money on them.. I can not vote for someone who was deeply involved with block granting welfare which has led to millions of people who should should be eligible with no recourse as the money simply isn't there. So for those and many other reasons no way, no how. Democrats made this bed I don't have to lie in it.

 
NCCommish said:
Sorry Tim still not happening. I can't vote for someone who is dead set on increasing body bag sales.She and her neocon buddies can hardly wait. I can't vote for someone that I personally think wants to run with her husbands idea to privatize Social Security. His admin spent 18 months studying how to do it. The idea was dropped when the impeachment came up. I think that's why Wall Street lavishes so much money on them.. I can not vote for someone who was deeply involved with block granting welfare which has led to millions of people who should should be eligible with no recourse as the money simply isn't there. So for those and many other reasons no way, no how. Democrats made this bed I don't have to lie in it.
Click to expand...
Hey I've got 5 more weeks to try! :D

I'm not going to try arguing Hillary Clinton with you. We don't see eye to eye on her but that's fine, I'll even concede that a lot of what you wrote may have merit. The gist of my argument is:

1. A Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country, far worse than the worst you can imagine from Hillary Clinton. Not only would it signal a reverse of so many progressive gains that, if I understand you correctly, are very important to you, it also threatens the very nature of who we are as a country, which is something that should be far more important to you and I than any specific issue. We cannot let this man take office, not if we love this country.

2. However we got here, Hillary Clinton is the only one now who can prevent Trump from being elected. I understand you would have preferred any other choice. FDR was forced to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. (No, I am not comparing Hillary to Stalin or Trump to Hitler, but the analogy demonstrates that sometimes you have to work with what you have.)

3. You live in a battleground state. Like it or not, your vote is more important in this election than those of us who don't. If North Carolina goes Democrat, Trump will not be elected President. If it goes for Trump, he might be. Your responsibility is grave here.

Please reconsider.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top