Warming Up to Hillary (Sort of)

Superfreak said:
Cypress, my problem with her is that she DID NOT support the free trade agreements prior to becoming a senator. I do not believe she has changed heart... I believe she is trying to appear as a moderate. She is voting yes on the trade agreements that are going to pass with or without her. Take a look at the trade agreements... The ones she voted for had a 60+ vote majority. The ones she didn't... were the close votes.

Perhaps you can explain why she would vote for free trade agreement with Oman and not with Central America?

She is trying to appear moderate.
Click to expand...


Cypress, my problem with her is that she DID NOT support the free trade agreements prior to becoming a senator.


As far as I know, in the 1990s she stood shoulder to shoulder with her husband on NAFTA, China Free Trade, and the Jordan Free trade agreement.

Do you agree, that you were wrong that she would "continue to vote against free trade agreements", when the actual facts show otherwise? That, she votes more often for them, than against them?

You appear to be suggesting that unless someone votes 100% of the time the way you want them, then they are a liberal. In fact Hillary neither votes 100% for the cons on trade agreements, nor 100% of the time with the left on trade agreements. Her record, indeed, shows that she votes more often for free trade agreements. That, by definition, is a centrist voting record.
 
Damocles said:
There were a lot of doctors that did not support it because of many different reasons. Just saying "a lot of doctors supported her plan" doesn't change what it actually proposed. It was a huge bureaucratic nightmare.
Click to expand...



Ten of the top Drs associations in the nation supported it.

The Rs fought it tooth an nail instead of truely trying to make any real changes in it.

They didnt want to fix the problem they just wanted to kill the idea of her reforming the health care system.

Think of how much better things would be right now if we had reformed it back then.
 
Y'all are so desparate for your party to take office that ya would endorse Hillary!..How so very sad...she is the Queen of "Me" she could care less about anyone but Hillary...I would bet donuts to dollars the poor soul who commited 'Suicide'(Debateable) over the 'White Water' incident is rollin' in his grave!
 
Desh said:
Ten of the top Drs associations in the nation supported it.

The Rs fought it tooth an nail instead of truely trying to make any real changes in it.

They didnt want to fix the problem they just wanted to kill the idea of her reforming the health care system.

Think of how much better things would be right now if we had reformed it back then.
Click to expand...
The Ds helped by giving so many different options. One more time, the answer was for the question of "why so many think her so far left". They think her that way because of her health care proposal.

And "ten of the top" leaves out many other of the "top" that did not. This is as much 'propaganda' as pointing out the rare circumstances where patients or doctors could go to jail. They were actually in there, but they certainly weren't as given in the ads where people would go to jail for wanting to continue seeing their family doctor.

Most of them were for people using cash to get better care, for using their wealth to get a faster surgery over another, for example. Both the doctor and patient in that case could have gone to jail or been fined $5000 or three times the cost, whichever was more.... blah, blah.

It doesn't change that this is why most people see her as so far left, which was my original point. Nor does it change that her proposal was certainly not "moderate".
 
"Do you agree, that you were wrong that she would "continue to vote against free trade agreements", when the actual facts show otherwise? That, she votes more often for them, than against them?"

you seem to be ignoring my point.... the ones she voted for.... were the ones in which the vote was not going to be close... they were the ones that were going to pass with or without her. So she voted for them ... so that people like you could point and say... "see... she supports free trade".

What possible explanation is there that she would vote FOR free trade with OMAN and NOT with Central America?

Also... I never said she had to vote 100% of the time my way or else be a liberal. I simply do not believe that she supports the major free trade agreements. I think she will try to reverse them. It is certainly just an opinion.

I do not say she is much further to the left than Bill solely on the free trade issue.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Exactly. In my party (Green) she's anathema. I wouldn't be able to show my face at a meeting if I admit that I might vote for her.

Well, that's a bit of an overstatement, but not much of one. :)

She gets called "too liberal" by people who've no clue what a real liberal is.
Click to expand...

To Georgia Greens, she's the icon/poster child of what's wrong with both major parties.

Anyone who believes that she's liberal should show her the platform of the Greens .. then watch her turn into a pumpkin. She's a long ass way from a truly liberal platform.

People believe that anything and anyone not conservative must be liberal. They see things in only two shades.

Liberals have always been against the war. Conservatives and those stuck in the middle in the nebulous world of "centrism" are the ones just catching up to reality.

Libertarians have been against the war .. in that upside down world they live in .. but for very different reasons than liberals.
 
Superfreak said:
"Do you agree, that you were wrong that she would "continue to vote against free trade agreements", when the actual facts show otherwise? That, she votes more often for them, than against them?"

you seem to be ignoring my point.... the ones she voted for.... were the ones in which the vote was not going to be close... they were the ones that were going to pass with or without her. So she voted for them ... so that people like you could point and say... "see... she supports free trade".

What possible explanation is there that she would vote FOR free trade with OMAN and NOT with Central America?

Also... I never said she had to vote 100% of the time my way or else be a liberal. I simply do not believe that she supports the major free trade agreements. I think she will try to reverse them. It is certainly just an opinion.

I do not say she is much further to the left than Bill solely on the free trade issue.
Click to expand...


you seem to be ignoring my point.... the ones she voted for.... were the ones in which the vote was not going to be close... they were the ones that were going to pass with or without her. So she voted for them ... so that people like you could point and say... "see... she supports free trade".


So, rather than rely on her actual voting record, and on facts, we've descended into your reading the tea leaves, and providing your opinion that this was all an elaborate hoax and her votes were all frauds designed to shield her ulterior motives?


That's a convincing argument SF :rolleyes:


I'll be sticking with voting records, and facts if you don't mind ;)
 
blackascoal said:
To Georgia Greens, she's the icon/poster child of what's wrong with both major parties.

Anyone who believes that she's liberal should show her the platform of the Greens .. then watch her turn into a pumpkin. She's a long ass way from a truly liberal platform.

People believe that anything and anyone not conservative must be liberal. They see things in only two shades.

Liberals have always been against the war. Conservatives and those stuck in the middle in the nebulous world of "centrism" are the ones just catching up to reality.

Libertarians have been against the war .. in that upside down world they live in .. but for very different reasons than liberals.
Click to expand...

Yep! That is so true, about Libertarians and that's why I wasn't bowled over by Ron Paul. So he's against the war, who cares? Yeah, I do think it's brave to say the things he said in front of a R audience, sure.

But he's not against the war because he feels the war. He's against it because it costs money, and also because he's probably an isolationist, and also a strict constructionist. He's not against it because bombs burn children to death, he's not against it because it kills innocents, and enriches the MIC who feeds off of death. So great, he's against the war, he's also against about 95% of the things I'm for. Thousands of Americans die every year because they have no health insurance. If they died in a terrorist attack, we would spend BILLIONS "avenging" them by murdering other innocents. But we will not spend any money if it was just lack of health insurance that killed them. That would be "socialism".
 
Superfreak said:
"I'll be sticking with voting records, and facts if you don't mind "

Which is exactly what she expects from the herd.
Click to expand...

So, "the herd" are the people who look at facts and voting records? And the people not in the herd are the ones who ignore facts and voting records, and just go on what their gut feelings tell them someone is going to do in the future?

I'm in the herd too then.
 
Darla said:
Yep! That is so true, about Libertarians and that's why I wasn't bowled over by Ron Paul. So he's against the war, who cares? Yeah, I do think it's brave to say the things he said in front of a R audience, sure.

But he's not against the war because he feels the war. He's against it because it costs money, and also because he's probably an isolationist, and also a strict constructionist. He's not against it because bombs burn children to death, he's not against it because it kills innocents, and enriches the MIC who feeds off of death. So great, he's against the war, he's also against about 95% of the things I'm for. Thousands of Americans die every year because they have no health insurance. If they died in a terrorist attack, we would spend BILLIONS "avenging" them by murdering other innocents. But we will not spend any money if it was just lack of health insurance that killed them. That would be "socialism".
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Up is down, and forward is 300 years ago in the libertarian world.

What I find most disturbing about them is their lack of humanity .. which defines liberalism. Suffering seniors, missing and under-educated children, victims of disasters, tainted food supplies, the future of this nation .. to them, who caes? It's all about the ME and anything that might cost them a nickel is unconstitutional, and as you've said, socialism.
 
Superfreak said:
"I'll be sticking with voting records, and facts if you don't mind "

Which is exactly what she expects from the herd.
Click to expand...


Let's deal with this one step at a time. Leaving aside you opinions that Hillary casts fake votes for free trade agreements intending to fool people, let's deal with your first assertion.

You said:

-"She is NOT a dedicated free trader. Bill was. She will continue to VOTE against these free trade deals."

I responded:

-"Her voting records shows that she votes more often for free trade agreements, than against them" (link was provided)


Were you wrong about her actual voting record?
 
Cypress said:
Let's deal with this one step at a time. Leaving aside you opinions that Hillary casts fake votes for free trade agreements intending to fool people, let's deal with your first assertion.

You said:

-"She is NOT a dedicated free trader. Bill was. She will continue to VOTE against these free trade deals."

I responded:

-"Her voting records shows that she votes more often for free trade agreements, than against them" (link was provided)


Were you wrong about her actual voting record?
Click to expand...
He explained his evaluation of her voting record, during which he recognized that she voted for some of them and why he believed it to be so.

You have yet to answer his question.
 
blackascoal said:
Absolutely.

Up is down, and forward is 300 years ago in the libertarian world.

What I find most disturbing about them is their lack of humanity .. which defines liberalism. Suffering seniors, missing and under-educated children, victims of disasters, tainted food supplies, the future of this nation .. to them, who caes? It's all about the ME and anything that might cost them a nickel is unconstitutional, and as you've said, socialism.
Click to expand...
300 years ago there were not "free trade" agreements anywhere. There were huge tarrifs and protectionist laws. So, how would it be going back 300 years to change that? (The fact is the current "free trade" agreements are not in actuality "free trade" either, but we can get to that later.)

In what way would a libertarian free market, which has never existed on the planet, ever be considered 300 years ago.
 
Cypress said:

Calling major bullshit here. She is NOT a dedicated free trader. Bill was. She will continue to vote against these free trade deals.


You'd be wrong on that:

-US-Oman Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-CAFTA: Voted NO
-US-Chile Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-US-Singapore Free Trade Deal: Voted YES

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463&type=category&category=63&go.x=5&go.y=12



This is why I'm constantly checking Cons assertions. ;). Facts matter.

The fact is, more often than not, Hillary support NAFTA-style "free" trade agreements.

Which makes her far more of a centrist, than some whacked out pro-union leftwing Democrat.
Click to expand...


Oh, found another one.

Hillary voted FOR the Australia Free Trade agreement, too.

SuperFreak: "She is NOT a dedicated free trader. Bill was. She will continue to VOTE against these free trade deals."


The Clinton Voting Record:

-US-Oman Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-CAFTA: Voted NO
-US-Chile Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-US-Singapore Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-US-Australia Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
 
The Clinton Voting Record:

-US-Oman Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-CAFTA: Voted NO
-US-Chile Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-US-Singapore Free Trade Deal: Voted YES
-US-Australia Free Trade Deal: Voted YES

Hmmm. You know, it's really not surprising that she has "fooled all of the moderates" when you look at that record.

Very clever of her. Oh, she must be laughing her ass of at the "moderates" right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top