I think SF was wrong when he said Clinton will "continue to vote against free trade agreements"
She's voted FOR virtually every free trade agreement in the senate, and she most certainly supported all of Bill's free trade agreements.
Warming Up to Hillary (Sort of)
- Thread starter OrnotBitwise
- Start date
I think SF was wrong when he said Clinton will "continue to vote against free trade agreements"
She's voted FOR virtually every free trade agreement in the senate, and she most certainly supported all of Bill's free trade agreements.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Trade Act of 2002.... NO
Where do you see Australia? It wasn't on your link.
Also... you continue to fail to address my point.... WHY is she for free trade with OMAN and NOT CAFTA????
you also continue to FAIL to address my other point.... did ya notice that the ones she votes FOR... are the ones where there is already a 60+ vote majority and that CAFTA was much narrower? Why?????
Where do you see Australia? It wasn't on your link.
Also... you continue to fail to address my point.... WHY is she for free trade with OMAN and NOT CAFTA????
you also continue to FAIL to address my other point.... did ya notice that the ones she votes FOR... are the ones where there is already a 60+ vote majority and that CAFTA was much narrower? Why?????
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"she most certainly supported all of Bill's free trade agreements."
and you are basing this off of what? The fact that as first lady she didn't publically disagree with her husband? Give me a break.
and you are basing this off of what? The fact that as first lady she didn't publically disagree with her husband? Give me a break.
I'll answer you question, after you answer mine
I asked first. Since Clinton has either voted FOR or supported the VAST majority of free trade deals in the last 12 years, were you wrong when you said that she's NOT a free trader and will "continue to vote AGAINST free trade deals"?"
with regard to your question SF:
Personally, I see no problem with senators voting on a case by case basis, on trade deals. Only ideological slaves decide to vote 100% for, or 100% against them. Every country, and every trade deal is different.
Since Hillary votes neither for, nor against trade deals 100% of the time (indeed, she mostly votes FOR them), she is niether rightwing nor leftwing on "free" trade. By definition, that means she's somewhere in the center.
Personally, I see no problem with senators voting on a case by case basis, on trade deals. Only ideological slaves decide to vote 100% for, or 100% against them. Every country, and every trade deal is different.
Since Hillary votes neither for, nor against trade deals 100% of the time (indeed, she mostly votes FOR them), she is niether rightwing nor leftwing on "free" trade. By definition, that means she's somewhere in the center.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Since Clinton has either voted FOR or supported the VAST majority of free trade deals in the last 12 years, were you wrong when you said that she's NOT a free trader and will "continue to vote AGAINST free trade deals"?""
No, I was not wrong. She voted against the two most encompassing free trade bills. She voted for the trade agreements with individual countries that already had overwhelming support. I believe she will continue to vote AGAINST the agreements that are with regions as she did with CAFTA and the the 2002 trade agreement. So take a look at the number of countries that were voted AGAINST and the number voted FOR. If you truly want to go by the numbers.....
your turn.....
No, I was not wrong. She voted against the two most encompassing free trade bills. She voted for the trade agreements with individual countries that already had overwhelming support. I believe she will continue to vote AGAINST the agreements that are with regions as she did with CAFTA and the the 2002 trade agreement. So take a look at the number of countries that were voted AGAINST and the number voted FOR. If you truly want to go by the numbers.....
your turn.....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Since Hillary votes neither for, nor against trade deals 100% of the time (indeed, she mostly votes FOR them), she is niether rightwing nor leftwing on "free" trade. By definition, that means she's somewhere in the center."
AGAIN... not if she is trying to give the appearance of being moderate on this issue by voting for the bills that are going to pass with or without her.
AGAIN... not if she is trying to give the appearance of being moderate on this issue by voting for the bills that are going to pass with or without her.
Battleborne
Terminator
So very true...
with all politicians..they glue themselves to 'Middle' ground...they are frauds from day one...this is why no one who stands their ground could be elected...a sorry state of affairs...I would run for office...however I am a real guy with real values....no big bucks either...so I will digress to tellling it like it is...have agreat 'Fathers Day' y'all as those who came before us all know what a fraud this is...lol..but alas I will go out and have some fun...'thats all folks'( stolen from a cartoon character...sad but true)
with all politicians..they glue themselves to 'Middle' ground...they are frauds from day one...this is why no one who stands their ground could be elected...a sorry state of affairs...I would run for office...however I am a real guy with real values....no big bucks either...so I will digress to tellling it like it is...have agreat 'Fathers Day' y'all as those who came before us all know what a fraud this is...lol..but alas I will go out and have some fun...'thats all folks'( stolen from a cartoon character...sad but true)
I'm going on facts and voting record SF. I'm sorry, I can't accept your guess that all her votes are clever and deliberate lies to fool the american people:
.
You should vote for her then.
But you can't accept that a vote can be a strategy move? That seems strange to me. When your vote won't effect the outcome, but can effect how people see you, you have the ability to make a strategic vote.
That being said, it would be the same if she were President. The reality is that political expedience can be a major factor in votes such as that. Was this what happened here? I can't say, but I can't reject the opinion of another just because I reject that some people may vote strategically, unless I ignore the politics and believe that everybody votes their conscience 100% of the time, I think that is wishful thinking.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
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".
I don't know about that. Ron has often invoked the golden rule as a guide for our foreign policy asking "Would we like it?". Having read much of his writing I get a strong impression from him that he does oppose war for much of the same reasons you or I do and other than Kuccinich maybe Paul is the most anti-war candidate out there.
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".
I don't know about that. Ron has often invoked the golden rule as a guide for our foreign policy asking "Would we like it?". Having read much of his writing I get a strong impression from him that he does oppose war for much of the same reasons you or I do and other than Kuccinich maybe Paul is the most anti-war candidate out there.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
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.
Whoa there. I don't know how long you've been hanging around political boards but this is a strawman charicature. I'm sure you don't like em when directed at liberals or any other group you may identify with. Hang around a bit and talk to us to get where we stand on these issues. You will find your preconceptions to be false. Damocles and myself are libertarians and neither of us subscribe to such a world view. On another site I frequently visit I would say such a viewpoint is in the minority.
I can tell you are a very bright individual obviously you must be aware there is great diversity even within political camps.
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.
Whoa there. I don't know how long you've been hanging around political boards but this is a strawman charicature. I'm sure you don't like em when directed at liberals or any other group you may identify with. Hang around a bit and talk to us to get where we stand on these issues. You will find your preconceptions to be false. Damocles and myself are libertarians and neither of us subscribe to such a world view. On another site I frequently visit I would say such a viewpoint is in the minority.
I can tell you are a very bright individual obviously you must be aware there is great diversity even within political camps.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Hillary voting for those free-trade agreements is not a positive mark on her part in my opinion.
I can accept that a politician will make discrete calculated votes, on occassion.
Hillary has a long record of supporting so-called free trade bills.
Besides, this mind-reading of hillary is irrelevant. That wasn't my contention.
Sfreak suggested that Hillary routinely and consistently votes against free trade agreements. Hence, the issue was about votes, not about mind-reading.
Her votes are overwhelmingly for free trade agreements. Sfreak won't admit he was wrong about that.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I meant nothing personal and apologize if you took it that way. I'd have no problem with someone challenging the liberal perspective as long as it isn't personal. Libertarians, like every other political perspective, has variations and personal interpretations. I was speaking to what seems to be the core of libertarian ideology. There is even prowar libertarian thought called by some as liberventionism, which would appear to negate that "force" thing entirely.
But at the core of all libertarian thought seems to be the concept of "force and coersion", and a belief that the individual is the most important element in society.
With respect to you and Damocles, and any ither libertarian here, I will indeed be more careful and specfic about my comments about libertarians and make it specific to the ideology itself.
I was in a two hour debate on a talk-radio show a little more than a week ago with two libertarians from the Paul campaign and I've written a couple of articles that take a negative view of Paul and libertarian ideology. Now I'm getting press releases and notices from the Libertarian Party.
Point is, perhaps I'm still a bit wired from the libertarian overload. I mean no disrespect .. but I seriously disagree with the philosophy which I find WAY too axiomatic and disconnected from modern society.
Sorry
But you are right about the Libertarian ideology, in general. And I have run into a lot of Libertarians on message boards, and never would have given two cents for any one of them. Damo and IHG are very strange. When I first "met" them, on a different board, I was very nasty to both of them. But they're not like most libertarians, or even republicans. First of all, neither one is a sexist or a racist, so that right there was new for me. And Damo is some kind of Vegetarian/Buddist/Republican, if you can believe that. Who ever heard of such a thing?
So, they shouldnt take it personally, because they're exceptions, but generally speaking, I agree with you, and I that is how I have always found Libertarians to be in the past.
Superfreak is a man. Men generally (there are exceptions) will do just about anything to avoid admiting they were wrong.
So, welcome to my world Cypress!
lol
What, is it like the asking for directions thing? I don't understand it! Cawacko busted me for being wrong on a fact yesterday, and I freely admitted it to him!