CDZ Time to be honest about NAFTA

[Toronado3800]

My glasses are clear.

I consider it true that Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA cost Hillary Clinton .25% of the vote she needed in the last election and in a way they got what they deserved out of it.

The neo-revisionism of history by Republican cheerleaders is difficult to swallow though.

NAFTA had been kicking around for a good decade under two Republican Presidents and all Bill Clinton did was prove he was a globalist like H Bush or Reagan.

History lesson: More Republicans than Democrats supported NAFTA

What Is the History and Purpose of NAFTA?

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia

It is totally fine to be against NAFTA.

It is totally fine to be against Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA. (I am lol, follow me!)

You can wave the Trump flag and hope he does something about it.

It is hypocritical to wave the Republican flag and do either of those though.

Its time to educate voters who are not old enough to remember 1990

 

[Moonglow]

Bill is no more rotten for signing it than Reagan and Bush sr is for negotiating it....It just didn't start on it's own.

1990 Bush was president and.....??

 

[shockedcanadian]

The problem with these deals isn't that they offer tariff free trade and eliminate barriers, that is a good thing. The problem is that Canada is socialist, with 1000's of barriers and "dirty trick" tactics used against it's own citizens and U.S businesses, while Mexico is a 2nd World Country.

This was never going to end well for free market capitalism and even our system of liberty. California, New York and a few other Northern states have so much in common with Ontario than any other U.S states. We have exported out system across the border at the expense of U.S sovereignty, and it's not by accident I imagine...

 

[jwoodie]

It is totally fine to be against NAFTA.

It is totally fine to be against Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA. (I am lol, follow me!)

You can wave the Trump flag and hope he does something about it.

It is hypocritical to wave the Republican flag and do either of those though.

Thanks for your condescending attempt at syllogistic logic.

 

[longknife]

The Free in NAFTA has never really been there.

Example, Canada is severely restricting soft wood exports to the USA where we need it for construction purposes.

Mexico is restricting certain food items from being exported to the USA.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My glasses are clear.

I consider it true that Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA cost Hillary Clinton .25% of the vote she needed in the last election and in a way they got what they deserved out of it.

The neo-revisionism of history by Republican cheerleaders is difficult to swallow though.

NAFTA had been kicking around for a good decade under two Republican Presidents and all Bill Clinton did was prove he was a globalist like H Bush or Reagan.

History lesson: More Republicans than Democrats supported NAFTA

What Is the History and Purpose of NAFTA?

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia

It is totally fine to be against NAFTA.

It is totally fine to be against Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA. (I am lol, follow me!)

You can wave the Trump flag and hope he does something about it.

It is hypocritical to wave the Republican flag and do either of those though.

Its time to educate voters who are not old enough to remember 1990

I'm confused about what you want members to address in this thread:

• Is this thread one for which you want to use NAFTA as a foil for discussing political/ideological hypocrisy?
• Is the thread supposed to address the technical/economic merits and/or demerits of NAFTA's provisions?
• Is the thread supposed to discuss the impact of NAFTA on Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat?

Those are some pretty disparate topics that are only obliquely related by the coincidence of NAFTA being context of consideration that each of them shares....sort of like....

• Lion cubs cloned in France.
• Lion mistreatment in circus and stage acts.
• Lion conservation in Botswana

All three have something to do with lions, but they're really not related topics. If I saw all three of those ideas/events mentioned in a discussion rubric, I wouldn't know what I'm supposed to think about or remark about.

 

[Toronado3800]

My glasses are clear.

I consider it true that Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA cost Hillary Clinton .25% of the vote she needed in the last election and in a way they got what they deserved out of it.

The neo-revisionism of history by Republican cheerleaders is difficult to swallow though.

NAFTA had been kicking around for a good decade under two Republican Presidents and all Bill Clinton did was prove he was a globalist like H Bush or Reagan.

History lesson: More Republicans than Democrats supported NAFTA

What Is the History and Purpose of NAFTA?

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia

It is totally fine to be against NAFTA.

It is totally fine to be against Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA. (I am lol, follow me!)

You can wave the Trump flag and hope he does something about it.

It is hypocritical to wave the Republican flag and do either of those though.

Its time to educate voters who are not old enough to remember 1990

I'm confused about what you want members to address in this thread:

• Is this thread one for which you want to use NAFTA as a foil for discussing political/ideological hypocrisy?
• Is the thread supposed to address the technical/economic merits and/or demerits of NAFTA's provisions?
• Is the thread supposed to discuss the impact of NAFTA on Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat?

Those are some pretty disparate topics that are only obliquely related by the coincidence of NAFTA being context of consideration that each of them shares....sort of like....

• Lion cubs cloned in France.
• Lion mistreatment in circus and stage acts.
• Lion conservation in Botswana

All three have something to do with lions, but they're really not related topics. If I saw all three of those ideas/events mentioned in a discussion rubric, I wouldn't know what I'm supposed to think about or remark about.

Hi Xelor, forgive my post (and most of my others!) for being more conversational or threads of thoughts I had last time I was driving around than an organized presentation. I will work on that but don't get your hopes up I use the internets a bit casually.

My main purposes are to:

1 - Show hypocrisy in Republican team worshipers in regards to NAFTA. That treaty was pushed by Reagan and negotiated under Bush H.

2 - Show I am not blind and do criticize the Democratic "team" as well for NAFTA with my snide remarks about Bill losing the election for Hillary.

Debating NAFTA was outside the scope of my conversation. I was addressing those who believe it to be a bad thing. I also am "against it" so I did not expect much debate there.

 

[HenryBHough]

NAFTA was a POS from the get-go.

Since then it has only gotten worse as Canada and Mexico found ways to use it as a weapon.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My glasses are clear.

I consider it true that Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA cost Hillary Clinton .25% of the vote she needed in the last election and in a way they got what they deserved out of it.

The neo-revisionism of history by Republican cheerleaders is difficult to swallow though.

NAFTA had been kicking around for a good decade under two Republican Presidents and all Bill Clinton did was prove he was a globalist like H Bush or Reagan.

History lesson: More Republicans than Democrats supported NAFTA

What Is the History and Purpose of NAFTA?

North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia

It is totally fine to be against NAFTA.

It is totally fine to be against Bill Clinton's signing of NAFTA. (I am lol, follow me!)

You can wave the Trump flag and hope he does something about it.

It is hypocritical to wave the Republican flag and do either of those though.

Its time to educate voters who are not old enough to remember 1990

I'm confused about what you want members to address in this thread:

• Is this thread one for which you want to use NAFTA as a foil for discussing political/ideological hypocrisy?
• Is the thread supposed to address the technical/economic merits and/or demerits of NAFTA's provisions?
• Is the thread supposed to discuss the impact of NAFTA on Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat?

Those are some pretty disparate topics that are only obliquely related by the coincidence of NAFTA being context of consideration that each of them shares....sort of like....

• Lion cubs cloned in France.
• Lion mistreatment in circus and stage acts.
• Lion conservation in Botswana

All three have something to do with lions, but they're really not related topics. If I saw all three of those ideas/events mentioned in a discussion rubric, I wouldn't know what I'm supposed to think about or remark about.

Hi Xelor, forgive my post (and most of my others!) for being more conversational or threads of thoughts I had last time I was driving around than an organized presentation. I will work on that but don't get your hopes up I use the internets a bit casually.

My main purposes are to:

1 - Show hypocrisy in Republican team worshipers in regards to NAFTA. That treaty was pushed by Reagan and negotiated under Bush H.

2 - Show I am not blind and do criticize the Democratic "team" as well for NAFTA with my snide remarks about Bill losing the election for Hillary.

Debating NAFTA was outside the scope of my conversation. I was addressing those who believe it to be a bad thing. I also am "against it" so I did not expect much debate there.

Hi Xelor, forgive my post (and most of my others!) for being more conversational or threads of thoughts I had last time I was driving around than an organized presentation. I will work on that but don't get your hopes up I use the internets a bit casually.

Sure, but, truly, there was nothing for which you need seek forgiveness. LOL I don't at all mind asking for clarification of what be a poster's rhetorical/discursive purpose for a given thread s/he creates.

Like you, my expressions posted here are casually given, at least in comparison to the structure of ideas I express in venues where "it matters." Similarly, the thought I put into my posts doesn't have the degree of rigor I'd put into ideas I express in important situations, i.e., situations wherein I haven't the veil of anonymity protecting my hard won reputation for coherence, integrity, equitability, accuracy, etc. To be sure, I try always to maintain those values for they are, after all, inculcated and accepted values, but here I less diligently try than I do in "the real world."

My main purposes are to:

1 - Show hypocrisy in Republican team worshipers in regards to NAFTA. That treaty was pushed by Reagan and negotiated under Bush H.

2 - Show I am not blind and do criticize the Democratic "team" as well for NAFTA with my snide remarks about Bill losing the election for Hillary.

TY for the clarification.

 

[Zander]

I was for NAFTA in the 90's because of the way it was presented. NAFTA was touted as a "Free" trade agreement. It turned out to be a give-away program for Mexico and Canaduh with very little "free trade".

We as a country need to periodically review every trade deal and renegotiate, regardless of which party is in the Oval Orfice.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

My main purposes are to:

1 - Show hypocrisy in Republican team worshipers in regards to NAFTA. That treaty was pushed by Reagan and negotiated under Bush H.
2 - Show I am not blind and do criticize the Democratic "team" as well for NAFTA with my snide remarks about Bill losing the election for Hillary.

While I agree there's plenty of hypocrisy coming from Republicans and Democrats, I probably wouldn't use free trade as the foil for, with regard to either, highlighting it. I wouldn't because the matter of free trade (the absence of legally unavoidable strictures/burdens/impediments on the exchange of goods and services) has extensively and for a century or so (dating at least to Smoot-Hawley and continuing to as recently as Obama's tariffs) been shown to yield greater overall benefits to an economy than does restricted trade (the imposition/presence of any statutorily unavoidable strictures/burdens/impediments making trade necessarily be not freely undertaken/"undertakeable"). That it does has been established to such an extent that among the community of professional who study free trade, few and far between are any who oppose it, and the few who are willing to forbear restrictions do so on normative not positive grounds. Accordingly, I would expect both Democrats and Republicans to embrace free trade measures.

There is also the matter of there being a difference between hypocrisy and incongruity. Again, plenty of Democratic and Republican leaders (elected, appointed or otherwise) exhibit both qualities, however, in most instances, what I see at the party level is incongruity, whereas at the individual level I see both, though slightly more often (with regard to most any given individual) incongruity rather than hypocrisy. I'm not of a mind to declare one a hypocrite (and in turn show my declaration to be true) when I don't have a reasonable basis for thinking the person in question dissemblingly "talks out of two sides of their mouth."

 

[Syriusly]

The Free in NAFTA has never really been there.

Example, Canada is severely restricting soft wood exports to the USA where we need it for construction purposes.

No- the United States has slapped anti-dumping tariff's on soft wood from Canada to reduce those imports. You actually have the facts backward.

U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Dumping and Subsidization of Imports of Softwood Lumber from Canada