HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why I Wouldn't Vote for H...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:23 PM

Why I Wouldn't Vote for Hillary if She Ran in 2016...

because what Noam Chomsky said in 1993 about NAFTA...Free TRADE and CLINTON...that's COME TRUE!

It's a bit of a watch...and you need to "skip through" the glowing introduction of Chomsky in the beginning...as nice as it was.

Lays it all out. Like he was a Prophet or Something! And NOW President Obama is promoting TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership and new Euro Partnership) on the heels of his "Chained CPI jeopardizing Social Security) but the Trade Agreements (shipping jobs overseas) giving the Corporations the Power that our Supreme Court gave them in the "Citizens United Decision."

It's all orchestrated from WAY BACK by Think Tanks and Dems who thought this was the WAY to Beat Back the Repugs! In the end we Joined Them in their Own Game...and made it easier for them!

When you have time... Sunday night is not good but if you could "Bookmark" for later when there's time to view.


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

67 replies, 4913 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why I Wouldn't Vote for Hillary if She Ran in 2016... (Original post)
KoKo Apr 2013 OP
DURHAM D Apr 2013 #1
DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #4
DURHAM D Apr 2013 #5
joshcryer Apr 2013 #8
UTUSN Apr 2013 #2
UTUSN Apr 2013 #3
KoKo Apr 2013 #6
UTUSN Apr 2013 #65
woo me with science Apr 2013 #7
Beacool Apr 2013 #9
Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #44
antigop Apr 2013 #56
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #61
Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #63
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2013 #64
cantbeserious Apr 2013 #10
antigop Apr 2013 #23
William769 Apr 2013 #11
KoKo Apr 2013 #13
William769 Apr 2013 #14
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #12
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #15
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #17
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #18
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #30
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #33
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #37
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #39
JaneyVee Apr 2013 #40
onehandle Apr 2013 #16
KoKo Apr 2013 #29
antigop Apr 2013 #19
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #36
antigop Apr 2013 #41
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #43
antigop Apr 2013 #49
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #53
antigop Apr 2013 #55
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #45
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #47
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #48
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #54
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #57
onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #60
antigop Apr 2013 #50
SylviaD Apr 2013 #20
antigop Apr 2013 #22
antigop Apr 2013 #21
MelungeonWoman Apr 2013 #24
antigop Apr 2013 #25
MelungeonWoman Apr 2013 #28
peace13 Apr 2013 #26
jerseyjack Apr 2013 #27
RudynJack Apr 2013 #59
Fuddnik Apr 2013 #31
RC Apr 2013 #32
KoKo Apr 2013 #35
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #34
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #38
OldDem2012 Apr 2013 #42
MattBaggins Apr 2013 #46
JoePhilly Apr 2013 #51
Martin Eden Apr 2013 #52
Taverner Apr 2013 #58
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2013 #62
Hekate Apr 2013 #66
MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #67

Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:38 PM

1. Yes indeed. I was so angry when she cast that vote...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:13 PM

4. so, when it suits them

they are a package deal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/books/review/scenes-from-a-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

when it does not, Hillary is independent.

The inabaility to have a consistent view of the truth must be hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:21 PM

5. During the 2008 primary

both Obama and Hillary said that NAFTA needed revisions. Immediately thereafter a member of Obama's staff, Samantha Power, contacted her friends in the Canadian government to say he was "Just kidding" and he had to say it because he was campaigning.

I don't believe the NAFTA revision discussion is currently on the Obama table.

I am not the one with the "truth" problem.

Done



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:52 PM

8. I remember that well.

Of course as we warned people about Obama we got trashed to fuck and back about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:51 PM

2. I'll go with my own instincts

1) I was a TOTAL Hillary supporter in the '08 primaries, was (also) blindsighted by OBAMA, thought the skinny jean girls were a gimmick (they were), thought his HUNDREDS of promises were mind-blowing, thought the rhetorical flourishes were fluff, and, yes, thought the followers were a CULT.

2) The AMATEURISH (wasteful millions) of Hillary's campaign (funneling millions to establishment a-holes p.r.) led me to believe that she was just doing what you are supposed to do, not CONNECTED to people.

3) Her credentials: Senator, meh, safe seat in NY like Bobby KENNEDY. Then what a FANTASTIC Secretary of State she was - uh, what exactly did she do as SoS - fly around the planet and have diplomatic teas.

4) I went out of my way to go to the only rally on my area, and the person was TIRED. She's (my age?), and being RAYGUN's age is not a plus.

That's whadagottasay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 09:54 PM

3. Of COURSE, if she is the nominee I will vote for her (any Dem) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:47 PM

6. I think that only applies during "Election Season" here on DU...

and that in-between Elections until there is a Confirmed Dem Candidate we are allowed to discuss politics and future candidates here on DU...at least that's my impression of the DU Rules even for DU-3.

So...can't imagine that what you said in your post above here about Obama and Hillary would be anything but your expression about "past candidates" and that it wouldn't be against any rules.

Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:59 PM

65. Since the thread has popped back to p. 1, I want to clarify

1) My broad framework in politics is the Big Umbrella of the Democratic Party coalition: Each coalition group having its top agenda item its own --- civil rights, social justice, unions, humanitarian protections -- but down below on their lists of top one or two items, all groups in general consensus with those of all the other groups. The Democratic AGENDA is primary, not (generally) the messengers.


2) As a youth I looked for heroes and found them in Woodrow WILSON, Al SMITH, FDR, and HST. I was wary of JFK from the start and picked LBJ (not old enough to vote). With an older perspective, I learned that it is the AGENDA that matters, and that the AGENDA is separate from the personal drama of biographies, although fantastic personalities with the right direction can further the agenda immeasurably - or hurt it disastrously.

In my list, FDR and HST retain the high majority of my Personality Worship, with the others keeping somewhat smaller portions. The KENNEDYs were never on my list. Before CLINTON, they became my example of how Personality Cultism gets in the way of the party agenda, disastrously. How much of RFK's anti-war sentiment was deeply rooted in his own personal tragedies and hatred for LBJ and his own career decisions (prosecuting the Mob) that might have led to his personal family tragedies?

So it has been a long process for me NOT to be swayed by Personality Cultism. It would have to be somebody of FDR/HST or even LBJ levels for me to succumb, IF I could recognize them in real time.


3) As for the '08 primary and the future for Hillary: I was really really strong for her all the way until it was clear she had lost (when she finally conceded), and then I opened to giving a second look at OBAMA, and while my original doubts remained over the superficial faddism of the youthful supporters and the hundreds of promises within any given speech and "the heavens opening up" as Hillary put it, my ONE objective was to dump everything Shrub-CHEENEE in the garbage where they should always have been. What the one word "Change" was all about, despite being an elephant in the room, was ANYTHING AWAY FROM SHRUB. But as with all my Dem nominees, I thoroughly threw myself in OBAMA's support, and gloried in any shred of sticking it in the Rethugs' eyes. That's why the Nobel was important, not for what he had done (what?) but because his very election meant a rejection of all-things-Shrub/Rethug.

But to clarify my points about Hillary: She ran a totally INSIDE the box campaign, paying the career p.r. people millions, wasting the millions on conventional by-the-list things without originality or riskiness. As for everybody's saying what a fantastic Secretary of State she was, I will appreciate anybody's telling me what significant negotiation she facilitated. Her statements sound like soulless recitations of positions that have been totally vetted in a way that makes them "safe" and nearly uncriticizeable, and this goes for her recent statements on Women and Gay rights.


********Just to round out my making of more enemies, I've said here several times that McGOVERN was not my choice in that primary and I wrote him a letter saying that and saying that I thought he had NO chance to beat NIXON and that all that mattered was to BEAT NIXON. I wish I had kept the reply, which would be a historic document, whether it was written by staff or the signature was original, in which he said he himself DID think he could win and hoped I would give him a chance. I admired him for his character and beliefs and, of course, voted for him. My point in bringing him up is not JUST that ANY Dem is better than any Rethug, which is true, but that no amount of purity and nobility are good for the AGENDA if the candidate loses. And candidates who are incapable of assessing their own viability are already seriously flawed. They see 400 people at an airport rally and who wouldn't be personally thrilled, but they can't see this doesn't translate into a winning vote.

All of this adds up to, I love and support ALL Dems who are not personally corrupt. The point is that it be a Dem who appoints the Supreme Court and the thousands of policy making bureaucrats and being good-try effective in getting the Congress to follow. As ABBA says, the winner takes it ALL. And if the personal baggage of a Bill CLINTON detracts from the agenda, the personality is just not a help. (I stood by him, too, during that whole FAKE impeachment thing.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:48 PM

7. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:55 PM

9. Vote for the Republican then.

It's a free country.



Although, NAFTA is not the reason that so many jobs are gone. Most of the jobs that were sent overseas were sent to India and Asia, not Mexico and Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:43 AM

44. Whirlpool has been busy sending jobs to Mexico

Whirlpool factories in Indiana and Arkansas, and probably elsewhere, have closed down since NAFTA.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/whirlpool-moving-jobs-mexico

Levi's shut down plants in low-wage states like Arkansas and New Mexico after already having production plants in Mexico.

http://www.texnews.com/biz97/levi110497.html

Zenith closed its TV plant in Springfield, Missouri and moved to Mexico.

http://www.boblinder.com/p402352149/h135C8E2B#h135c8e2b

Even Hershey's moved to Mexico

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/20022-hershey-s-chocolate-moves-mexico

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:12 PM

56. Hey, don't confuse people with facts now! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:25 PM

61. Stop that, posting facts when the campaign for 2016 has already begun.

I will not support Hillary, she voted for the war in Iraq. She boasted about being involved in a war crime, prompting Bishop Tutu to state that what she said was reprehensible. I was horrified. I met her once, she was different then. Or maybe she wasn't.

She attends religious meetings with members of the Family.

Rupert Murdoch gave her a party.

I hope we don't have to deal with a Hillary candidacy. Enough with the same old recycled candidates, safe for Wall St.

We need new candidates, real Progressive Dems. But frankly I don't much care about the presidency anymore. I will be focusing totally on Congress then it won't matter who is president. Congress is where the power is. Too bad we get distracted by the presidential races.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:41 PM

63. I would love to see a real "take-no-shit" progressive president

LBJ was probably the last of that breed. His hamartia, of course, was Vietnam, but I think of his Great Society as a Golden Age. If Robert Kennedy had been able to become President in 1968, I think we could have had a Great Society without the war.

I agree that Congress is important. Unfortunately, my state, which could always be counted on to have a majority Democratic Congressional delegation, has been regressing to the point where the Republicans now seem to be firmly in control. *sigh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:53 PM

64. I second that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:58 PM

10. Will Hillary Defend The 99% - Probably Not - Enough Said

The Cure For Capitalism - Richard Wolff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:18 PM

23. She's already sold out American workers...no, she won't defend the 99%. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:58 PM

11. If she decides to run and is our nominee Good luck finding another discussion board to drown your

your sorrows in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:02 PM

13. It's almost four years from now. Who knows what could happen...

that's a harsh statement to make. What's with that? Anything can happen in three years. I was answering those who are already pushing Hillary as a Candidate. We have free speech on DU until after the Dem Convention and the Nominee is chosen in late Summer of 2015!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:05 PM

14. This I agree with, I was responding to your OP

Maybe you should have waited for that also until 2015 (or is this one of those case's where it's good for the goose but not the gander).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:00 PM

12. Now we're blaming women for choices their husbands make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:06 PM

15. Why dont you present your argument instead of asking questions? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:09 PM

17. Huh? What argument, I'm asking a question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:14 PM

18. LOL. Nice try. That's a Fox technique. Insinuation via question.

If you disagree, give your best shot instead of asking "a question". Plez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #18)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:41 PM

30. I have absolutely no idea WTF you're talking about. Your posts are bizarre. Cheer up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:53 PM

33. your response to the OP was " Now we're blaming women for choices their husbands make?"

Who said that? Who are you addressing with at strawman?

If you dont like people blaming Sen Clinton for the choices Pres Clinton made, why dont you just come right out and say it? But no, you have to infer via question.

Really, "blaming women for the choices their husbands make?"

If you support Sen Clinton or Sec Clinton, why dont you present a decent argument in her favor? As far as I am concerned she represents the 1%. If you dont agree, I will gladly listen to decent arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:02 AM

37. Why do I have to present an argument in defense of her? I'm asking a question!

I would say the same if someone was attacking Chris Christie's wife for a choice HE made. Again, your questioning is bizarre. My post never even mentioned Hillary, I was asking a question about the scenario the OP is posing. Which is NOT a strawman. Good grief.

ETA: Just apologize already. It's OK to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:10 AM

39. But your question insinuates that the OP is blaming Sen Clinton for what her husband did.

The OP does do that, therefore your question is a strawman argument. No one is blaming women for the choices their husbands make.

Some here think that asking questions relives them from responsibility of what they are implying. It's a technique commonly used by Faux.

Dont be afraid to state where you stand. If you dont like the OP, come right out and say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:32 AM

40. The OP is implying that he wouldn't vote for Hillary because of a law her husband signed.

Did that part go over your head? And don't lecture me either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:07 PM

16. I hope you mean in the Primary. An if so, who's your alternative who Will run. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:35 PM

29. No...I would not vote for her in the Primary...and I was answering

those who keep posting as if Campaign Season for 2016 has already started. I have no idea who the candidates will be for 2016...and so much can happen...I wonder why we don't focus on the HERE AND NOW.. We just re-elected Obama...and yet there are those already seemingly vowed to commit to Hillary for 2016...and so I am replying why I would not support her in answer.

I think it's too early to be talking about 2016 because it distracts from what is going on NOW which will bring forth candidates for '16 and since there was already seeming a growing Hillary Candidacy Support Group...I expressed my opinion as to why one of the reasons I wouldn't support her was...NAFTA...also I might add her vote on the Iraq Invasion and the Clinton Team's involvement with founding DLC --which I supported when they first did their "Get Away Conferences" in SC way back.

I no longer support DLC/THIRD WAY or NEO Liberal Policy. At the time the Clinton's were involved, early on, it seemed a good idea for us Dems since we were losing elections. But, in retrospect, it was TERRIBLE for the country. NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Media de-regulation, end of Glass-Steagall, (Depression era legislation), which kept Investment Banking separate from Community Banking which lead to Global Financial Crash starting with Gone Wild Wall Street speculating in Real Estate and CDS speculation bubble and then Banking Implosion which hit US and Eurozone and has had ramifications internationally causing terrible hardships for ordinary citizens of all the countries involved in the speculation by Wall Street.

There's more...but, this is enough! I'd like to see Fresh Faces and Policy Ideas that differ from the failed ones of the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:14 PM

19. Hillary sold out the American worker -- she touts the "advantages" of outsourcing US jobs

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ndtv-exclusive-hillary-clinton-on-fdi-mamata-outsourcing-and-hafiz-saeed-full-transcript-207593

]Hillary Clinton: So you are talking about the outsourcing of US jobs to India. We know it's been going on for many years now and it's part of our economic relationship with India and I think there are advantages with it that have certainly benefitted many parts of our country and there are disadvantages that go to the need to improve the job fields of our own people and create a better economic environment so it's like anything like the pluses and minuses.


The "advantages" are to the CEOs and shareholders, NOT the working stiffs.

And please, dear Hillary, tell us what laid off engineers and IT people are supposed to train for after their jobs have been outsourced.

Cue the "hater" posts...countdown ....3...2...1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:00 AM

36. Free Trade...Well, then save some ire for Paul Krugman

snip

A good many Americans did not believe , mainly working people who saw their jobs and middle-class wages decimated by the processes of globalizing production. Krugman said they didn’t see the big picture. Educated professionals whose own livelihoods were not threatened by globalization were more likely to embrace Krugman’s perspective. While he never won the debate with the broad public, his argument prevailed where it counts – among the political elites who influence government policy-making. Both political parties, every president from Reagan to Obama, embraced the same free-trade strategy: support US multinational corporations in global competition, as their success is bound to lift the rest of the country.
http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130402/how-krugman-was-so-wrong-on-trade?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-krugman-was-so-wrong-on-trade
snip

Not only did Krugman fully embrace and recommend free trade, he ridiculed both republicans, democrats AND union supporters who said it would be a job killer. But, Krugman has had time and the short memories of Americans.

Of course, he isn't running for president. But, he still manages to find a following for his pearls of wisdom.

By the way, has he every apologized for that misguided adventure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:40 AM

41. The OP isn't about Krugman -- it's about DLC Hillary. Krugman didn't co-found the Senate India

Caucus with JOHN CORNYN.

And the interview I posted was from last year ---- she has learned nothing and was still pushing this bs last year as SOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:03 AM

43. I know the OP wasn't about Krugman.

Free trade was mentioned as a reason to dislike Clinton. Krugman was King Free Trade when Bill Clinton was in office AND made it his business to ridicule and belittle democrats who were against Free Trade. My only point was one of consistency. If its the stench of Free Trade that burns your nostril, there is a current and loved economist who was instrumental in making it happen. And, it was not Hillary Clinton at the time. She was Bills wife.

It was Mr. All knowing guru and economic seer, Paul Krugman. To my mind, if there's room to love and forgive Paulie, there's probably room for Hillary. As for other reasons, have at it. It's a free country. And, it's years out, she may not run. Biden may run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:08 AM

49. My post was about outsourcing of US jobs...which Hillary touted the "advantages " of last year

as SOS.

For the record, Krugman wasn't a US Senator or SOS or elected to public office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:54 PM

53. Our free trade agreements sent jobs overseas...

Krugman is...

snip...
He is the 20th most widely cited economist in the world today and is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.
snip...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

snip

In all the pot-banging over NAFTA - the hysteria that it's a job-killer, the misguided claims that it will degrade the environment - there's an unsexy side of the accord that doesn't get much attention. It's the trade pact's impact on U.S.-Mexican relations and, more broadly, this nation's relationship with Latin America's democrats. Indeed, we agree with Paul Krugman, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, who argues that when it comes NAFTA's most far-reaching consequence, "It's foreign policy, stupid."

snip

Most economists believe, Mr. Krugman asserts, that the reforms will eventually "bear more abundant fruit." But if NAFTA is rejected on this side of the border, the calls for patience and continued faith won't have quite the same resonance. From being a suddenly friendly neighbor, Mexico could easily veer in the direction that once made it appear a ticking national security nightmare.

http://articles.philly.com/1993-11-03/news/25946245_1_nafta-foreign-policy-latin-debt-crisis

-------------------------
He was a trusted economist at a time when we needed one to say No. He definitely had the ear of the White House at the time. He eviscerated democrats who disagreed with him. Who were they to trust? Us? Or, Mr. Economics Genius of the World, Paul Krugman. Clinton may be co-signing this madness, but it certainly didn't start with her. And, I can't find many potential candidates that deviate from this sick script. I don't mind if others still follow him. When I see him, he's got NAFTA hanging around his neck like a brick. So, now he and I agree on an issue or two. But, I haven't forgotten.

Clinton isn't an economist. She may not even run. If she runs, she'll look to economists as her guide. Let's hope she or whoever claims the top spot, finds a decent one to depend on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:07 PM

55. This isn't about Krugman...it's about DLC Hillary. The OP mentioned why he/she would not support

Hillary IF she ran in 2016.

So you can try to bring up Krugman all you want -- it's not about Krugman -- it's about DLC Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:47 AM

45. Distraction, "hey look at Krugman." The question is, do you support Sec Clinton's

stance on free trade?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:40 AM

47. I think free trade has been instrumental in bringing down our economy.

Now, find me a democrat in a leadership position or in a position to influence policy who is willing to say the same thing. I haven't been able to find one. President Obama believes in Free trade. Which of the last set differed from Clinton on Free Trade? It's not a distraction. Where's the democratic nominee potential or respected economist with liberal leanings shouting that Free Trade has killed our economy?

What you want to do is blame Clinton for something that is hardly unique to Clinton? I simply say be honest. Some of us have ALWAYS believed this was going to be a disaster. But, we had no voice, apart from a vote. And, then when we voted, our politicians betrayed us. Is Warren against Free Trade? If she is, I've missed it.

Howard Dean said he wanted to enforce labor and environmental policies, BUT ALSO said he would vigorously enforce our existing free trade agreements.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Free_Trade.htm

I guess I'm saying, don't be mad at me. But, it's folk like us, who these trade agreements hurt. The people we vote for, live lives that are largely unimpacted personally by the decisions that they make. So, have at it. I'm perfectly willing to support a candidate (who has a chance of being elected), that agrees with me on Free Trade. I would love to find one.

I just haven't seen that individual, yet. Have you? Then, to top it off, if we favor no name recognition candidates, the media NEVER ALLOWS them to see daylight. The American population never gets a chance to hear from them.

So, no I don't support Sec Clinton's stance on free trade? Oh, but wait. It looks like every other potential candidates stance on free trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:04 AM

48. I hear you. My feeling is that we should be looking high and low and

not jump on the Pres Hillary Clinton bandwagon just yet.

Not an expert by a long shot, but free trade should theoretically favor the stronger nation. However, the rewards of free trade are not being shared by the Elite 1%. So it may not be free trade that's killing us but the disproportionate sharing of the rewards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:56 PM

54. Well, you may be right, rhett. You just might be right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:41 PM

57. Wait.....

are you saying that just to throw me off? No one ever says that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:18 PM

60. LOL...

No, I'm serious. I really do think about what people say. During our earlier conversation, I was sitting here wondering. I don't give Dr. Krugman a pass. Am I giving a Hillary Clinton a pass? Have I given up on getting a candidate that truly identifies with the issues that concern me. The free trade agreements, just keep on coming. I do think we were initially sold a bad bill of goods. Am I part of the problem? Quite possibly. I want to think about that. If we ever put our foot down, can the American people tell our politicians, we've had enough. Either make trade agreements that help our middle class or stop making these agreements. I don't want to be an isolationist. But, not everyone is going to be a part of the service industry. Not everyone is going to be a state or federal employee. Manufacturing played a large part in the growing of our middle class. We gave it away, way before automation started to decimate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:11 AM

50. Yes, it's a distraction and there HAVE been politicians who have railed against "free trade" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:15 PM

20. I WILL vote for Hillary in 2016.

More should have in the last primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SylviaD (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:17 PM

22. lol...she hasn't announced...Add "1" to the "inevitability" meme counter. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:16 PM

21. Hillary sold out the tech community by supporting an increase in the h1-b visa limit

Hillary Clinton reaffirms support for more H-1B visas



Not surprising since she co-founded the Senate India caucus with JOHN CORNYN.


Cue the "You're a Hater.Basher" posts...countdown....3...2...1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:24 PM

24. I voted for Hilary in 2008.

But I'll probably vote for Biden in '16. Time marches on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MelungeonWoman (Reply #24)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:28 PM

25. Biden hasn't announced either! Should we start a Biden meme counter, too? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:34 PM

28. Feel free.

I'm going to engage in idle speculation on a discussion board. Enjoy your evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:32 PM

26. Think back to the primary with Obama.

She refused to concede and went missing for over a week. She refused to show up at a news conference that she had called. This confusion split the party. It killed any confidence I had in her.

At this point all of this Hill talk serves only to divide the Dems. Why in the heck don't we focus on the politicians we have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:34 PM

27. Before falling in love with Hillary,

 

remember, Bill is now a multimillionaire. All this on a salary of 400k per year, minus taxes. Oh, I forgot. He is a partner in Carlyle Group.

Hillary will be a partner, too if we are dumb enuf to elect her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:47 PM

59. I can't find anything

that says Clinton is a partner in the Carlyle Group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:42 PM

31. I said before that I would never vote again for a DLC-tainted, New Dem, Third Way, or Blue Dog again

But, I did again when I voted for Obama.....again.

Never again. That means No more Clintons. No Biden.

Give me Feingold or give me death.

Feingold-Hedges 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:43 PM

32. Someone none of us have heard of, will be running for President in 2016.

 

S/He will lie their way into winning, by telling us what we want to hear. Once in, will then move to the Right. Sound familiar?
We will have been had once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:56 PM

35. omg...I hope we here, and the country will have learned better

by then...but then...it's just hope. Still there's a chance to learn from mistakes of the past. Surely we can't continue on the downward path we've been going. Somethings gotta change for real..

But, I'm tired of the "Dog and Pony Shows" of these elections...so I understand what you say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 11:55 PM

34. Sec Clinton has always represented the 1%. That's why I hope she doesnt win

the primary. We need a progressive to try to stop the domination of the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:09 AM

38. Bookmarked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:54 AM

42. It's a little early for definitive statements about 2016, isn't it? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:14 AM

46. THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:13 AM

51. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:19 PM

52. Biggest reason I won't vote for Hillary in a Democratic primary ...

... she voted for the Iraq War Resolution in October 2002 that gave Bush authority to invade Iraq.

I'd support her in the general election like I did Kerry in 2004, but I will never forgive any member of Congress who voted for the IWR.

Dems who voted for it showed colossally poor judgement, or they were on board the MIC gravy train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:42 PM

58. In all honesty, we need to purge the neo-libs from the DNC

 

They are as discredited as Lysenko...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 09:38 PM

62. Clinton: wrong on trade, financial markets, DOMA, and wellfare...

Why would we want another Clinton?

Idiots in the MSM on both sides (like Matthews!!!) are doing the selling of Hillary Clinton.

The desire to make history is clouding her advocates' judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 11:01 PM

66. Who are you voting for in 2014? She's certainly not on *that* ballot. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Original post)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:27 AM

67. I'm not encouraged by the Clintons, nor their progeny...

Ever since NAFTA, I knew Bill sold out and ever since HRC missed her opportunity to take a stand against war mongering, I wrote her off, too.

I hate the elite. What I hate even more are the well educated and the privileged not seeing the world as they might, had there been a vision to begin with.

The Kennedys had vision, but the Clintons have money and privilege. The words of Chomsky rang prophetic then and anyone who doesn't see it now never paid attention to the vision it's going to take to bring America out of the skids, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread