Bill Weld challenges Trump for GOP nomination in 2020

ttystikk said:

You're proving my point for me. If Democrats are really so different, then explain why he signed it at all?

Click to expand...

I'm just trying to nail down the point you are trying to make. Yes or no, is the following statement true?

Because Clinton signed the bill for NAFTA in 1993, Trump is same as Booker.

ttystikk said:

You're proving my point for me. If Democrats are really so different, then explain why he signed it at all?

Click to expand...

Most opposition was Democrats with 156 in the House voting against it. There are differences. Bush signed it on Dec. 17, 1992 , there was concern it wouldn't pass if he didn't sign it before he left office.

Id take Bill over George any day

Where’sthecurve said:

Actually rob roy said it perfectly above... one is communist at the core the other is religious ethnic zealots calling communism capitalism. To be short, I don’t have time to write a book. Many have though, politics is classical heigalian dialectic.

Click to expand...

Hegelian dialectic fify, you can’t fake smart.

Moses Mobetta said:

Most opposition was Democrats with 156 in the House voting against it. There are differences. Bush signed it on Dec. 17, 1992 , there was concern it wouldn't pass if he didn't sign it before he left office.

Click to expand...

I don't know why it even matters today except to people like tty who keep misquoting history but it is true that the Clinton administration was completely behind NAFTA. Al Gore debated Ross Perot on national TV over the issue with Gore using every cheap debating trick in the books to "win" the argument for NAFTA.

It has little to do with the issues of today but Democrats should own their role in implementing it as much as they should give the nod to history of the party's participation in segregation.

I still don't get the argument that because Clinton signed and supported NAFTA in 1993, today's Republicans are like today's Democrats. It's just another rant that people who know nothing go on about.

UncleBuck said:

If democrats and republicans are the same, why don’t you vote for republicans?

Click to expand...

I vote for Progressives who run under the Democratic party banner. This you already know, so why are you asking such disingenuous questions, other than to play dishonest gotcha games?

Fogdog said:

It is naive to say that Democrats are the same as Republicans.

Click to expand...

They both think there's nothing wrong with collecting money to fund their ideas with a gun.

They both worship the state more intensely when their idol is the one to be worshipped.

Neither of them thinks people who don't agree with them should be left alone.

...but of course they're totally different...

Rob Roy said:

They both think there's nothing wrong with collecting money to fund their ideas with a gun.

They both worship the state more intensely when their idol is the one to be worshipped.

Neither of them thinks people who don't agree with them should be left alone.

...but of course they're totally different...

Click to expand...

What a shitty stupid post

ttystikk said:

I vote for Progressives who run under the Democratic party banner. This you already know, so why are you asking such disingenuous questions, other than to play dishonest gotcha games?

Click to expand...

What do you mean when you use the word "progressive"? I've looked up the definition and it doesn't match the context when you use the word.

For example, you say that Elizabeth Warren is not progressive and Bernie Sander is. Yet Warren has a better record of voting for crucial progressive issues in Congress than Bernie has. Also, Bernie is a big supporter for Daniel Ortega who is a right wing military dictator and you support that assbite dictator in Venezuela. So, you obviously think the word means something other than what it does in general use.

So, what do you mean when you say "progressive"?

ttystikk said:

I'm not the one getting dizzy from all the spin.

Click to expand...

I sure am, think I might vomit

Fogdog said:

I don't know why it even matters today except to people like tty who keep misquoting history but it is true that the Clinton administration was completely behind NAFTA. Al Gore debated Ross Perot on national TV over the issue with Gore using every cheap debating trick in the books to "win" the argument for NAFTA.

It has little to do with the issues of today but Democrats should own their role in implementing it as much as they should give the nod to history of the party's participation in segregation.

I still don't get the argument that because Clinton signed and supported NAFTA in 1993, today's Republicans are like today's Democrats. It's just another rant that people who know nothing go on about.

Click to expand...

If you saw what NAFTA did to my hometown area, there are miles of abandoned factories. Tens of thousands of jobs disappeared not long after it passed. It decimated the economy. But republicans every so often will blame it all on Clinton. Interesting fact of record, Joe Biden voted against it. I have yet to see a Republican do anything but seek to raise wages for workers they always vote to lower wages for workers and have consistently sought to damage workers rights

Moses Mobetta said:

If you saw what NAFTA did to my hometown area, there are miles of abandoned factories. Tens of thousands of jobs disappeared not long after it passed. It decimated the economy. But republicans every so often will blame it all on Clinton. Interesting fact of record, Joe Biden voted against it. I have yet to see a Republican do anything but seek to raise wages for workers they always vote to lower wages for workers and have consistently sought to damage workers rights

Click to expand...

Was it NAFTA that caused the hollowing out of manufacturing in the US? The US could have protected its workers jobs better by insisting that Mexico follow the NAFTA agreements on protecting the environment, working conditions, worker's rights and collective bargaining. Instead, we simply let corporations have their way, enforced what was easy and ignored what was hard.

Also, why not focus on competing rather than protecting jobs? Our education policies are not anywhere near adequate for today's workforce. Then again, corporate practices guide job choices. Why should a person seek a job in an industry where the corporation will fire them as soon as they encounter economic headwinds? I keep hearing how we don't have enough trained workers by the very same companies that eliminated pensions, unions and treat employees as an expense rather than an asset.

From what I've read about NAFTA, it's pretty much a wash whether or not it created jobs. I would heartily agree that by ignoring key agreements in NAFTA and allowing corporations to skirt US labor and environmental regulations, worker's wages and working conditions have declined to the point where they are today. That would be true in Mexico and the US.

I'm more for encouraging fair competition rather than imposing protectionist policies.

Fogdog said:

What do you mean when you use the word "progressive"? I've looked up the definition and it doesn't match the context when you use the word.

For example, you say that Elizabeth Warren is not progressive and Bernie Sander is. Yet Warren has a better record of voting for crucial progressive issues in Congress than Bernie has. Also, Bernie is a big supporter for Daniel Ortega who is a right wing military dictator and you support that assbite dictator in Venezuela. So, you obviously think the word means something other than what it does in general use.

So, what do you mean when you say "progressive"?

Click to expand...

?????

londonfog said:

?????

Click to expand...

I don't think that matches up with saying that Warren is not a progressive while Bernie is. Why would supporting Venezuela's brutal military regime be "progressive"?

Fogdog said:

I don't think that matches up with saying that Warren is not a progressive while Bernie is. Why would supporting Venezuela's brutal military regime be "progressive"?

Click to expand...

You don't know shit and fuck off, Bernie was against the war before he was for it. That is tty Progressive thinking.
Bernie spoke out against the crime bill, So what that he voted for it.
How many post offices has Warren named ? exactly.
If we allow Bernie to continue his Progressive ways we can get all the USP offices renamed.

Fogdog said:

Was it NAFTA that caused the hollowing out of manufacturing in the US? The US could have protected its workers jobs better by insisting that Mexico follow the NAFTA agreements on protecting the environment, working conditions, worker's rights and collective bargaining. Instead, we simply let corporations have their way, enforced what was easy and ignored what was hard.

Also, why not focus on competing rather than protecting jobs? Our education policies are not anywhere near adequate for today's workforce. Then again, corporate practices guide job choices. Why should a person seek a job in an industry where the corporation will fire them as soon as they encounter economic headwinds? I keep hearing how we don't have enough trained workers by the very same companies that eliminated pensions, unions and treat employees as an expense rather than an asset.

From what I've read about NAFTA, it's pretty much a wash whether or not it created jobs. I would heartily agree that by ignoring key agreements in NAFTA and allowing corporations to skirt US labor and environmental regulations, worker's wages and working conditions have declined to the point where they are today. That would be true in Mexico and the US.

I'm more for encouraging fair competition rather than imposing protectionist policies.

Click to expand...

If we continue to allow corporations to operate irresponsibly in our country, making huge profits and paying poor wages except to those at the top or making all their money here and moving out taking good jobs with them, there won't be any good jobs. It needs to be unprofitable to manufacture things overseas and sell them here. Politicians in general have been selling out our workforce for decades for the benefit of the wealthy.

Moses Mobetta said:

If we continue to allow corporations to operate irresponsibly in our country, making huge profits and paying poor wages except to those at the top or making all their money here and moving out taking good jobs with them, there won't be any good jobs. It needs to be unprofitable to manufacture things overseas and sell them here. Politicians in general have been selling out our workforce for decades for the benefit of the wealthy.

Click to expand...

whats a good job ? and how is technology not going to take over it ?

londonfog said:

whats a good job ? and how is technology not going to take over it ?

Click to expand...

I'm a carpenter, I weld and fabricate also. There are places that would like to pay me $10 an hour with no benefits there are places I can make over $80 to $100 an hour. A good job to me is one that will pay enough to sustain what I believe is a good lifestyle, safe working conditions and to be treated respectfully. Technology eventually comes into everything over time

Moses Mobetta said:

I'm a carpenter, I weld and fabricate also. There are places that would like to pay me $10 an hour with no benefits there are places I can make over $80 to $100 an hour. A good job to me is one that will pay enough to sustain what I believe is a good lifestyle, safe working conditions and to be treated respectfully. Technology eventually comes into everything over time

Click to expand...

Respect that you are craftsman, but you better learn another trade soon

londonfog said:

Respect that you are craftsman, but you better learn another trade soon

Click to expand...

I'm 40 years into it now, doubtful I have many years left working or many years left at all. What do you see coming that causes you to say learn another trade soon?