Trump Picks Up Another Endorsement That Will Piss Off Hillary

[Never3ndr]

And what exactly does that have to do with my post?

I thought you were asking for evidence that Democrats voted against NAFTA. If that was not what you were asking then feel free to disregard my post.

My position is since a dem was the one who signed it into to law that obviously means it had support of dems.

We, as the people, usually think that who has the presidential seat, has the leadership of the party. We expect them to lead both their party and Congress into following the "gameplan" of how they want the country to be ran. This is just plain false, however, and shows a lack of basic understanding of how our government operates.

Generally speaking, the party leaders are all in places of power throughout Congress. You usually don't see party leaders running for a presidential office...why? Well, being president puts you at odds with Congress members more often than not. Both on the basis of trying to maintain the influence you have coupled with a basic belief in how our government was constructed (we have 3 branches of government built to counter each other, not 1 branch built to lead). These guys are usually the ones who influence the party and can great effect how they vote (do they need people to vote based off their constituent bases or based off of the party agenda) and what initiatives they push for. Now, in practice, some presidents have been able to relatively unify both their office along with Congress, but, more often than not, it just isn't the case.

With all that said, saying that a democrat signed something into office doesn't necessarily mean that the party supported it. Now, I wasn't following politics at the time, but, if you look strictly at the voting records, it looked like an issue that the party was relatively neutral on (at least in the House) and, so, allowed their members to vote based off their constituent bases rather than off party lines. Then again, this may have been before the time where the strength of Party Whips came into effect and the parties started to pretty much always vote based off of party stances rather than how their constituents may would like. Regardless, you can say that Clinton supported it, but saying that the Dems supported it is not an entirely true statement at all.

A dem signed the thing into law.
And you can bet a lot of those dems who did vote against it were doing so to save their own asses in the next election.

Nobody is denying that Clinton signed it into law? The issue is that you cannot draw the conclusion that "dems supported NAFTA" as a result of this action. I clearly explained why in my post, now, if you care to clearly post reason why you believe the party did support the position (again, I did not follow politics in 1993, that may very well have been the case), then please post your reasons. However, as it stands (your reasoning appearing to solely be based upon Clinton's action), your reasoning is lacking and I have clearly countered it with a reasonable understanding.

You realize that when people "vote to save their own asses"...which is voting in a way that the people that vote for you agree with...that is LITERALLY the basis of our representative democratic process. You vote for people that you believe will vote in a manner congruent with your beliefs. If a politician does NOT vote in a "way to save their own asses" (vote in a way their voter base doesn't agree with) it means they aren't doing their jobs and SHOULDN'T get re-elected. Do you even understand the way our political system operates?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And what exactly does that have to do with my post?

I thought you were asking for evidence that Democrats voted against NAFTA. If that was not what you were asking then feel free to disregard my post.

My position is since a dem was the one who signed it into to law that obviously means it had support of dems.

We, as the people, usually think that who has the presidential seat, has the leadership of the party. We expect them to lead both their party and Congress into following the "gameplan" of how they want the country to be ran. This is just plain false, however, and shows a lack of basic understanding of how our government operates.

Generally speaking, the party leaders are all in places of power throughout Congress. You usually don't see party leaders running for a presidential office...why? Well, being president puts you at odds with Congress members more often than not. Both on the basis of trying to maintain the influence you have coupled with a basic belief in how our government was constructed (we have 3 branches of government built to counter each other, not 1 branch built to lead). These guys are usually the ones who influence the party and can great effect how they vote (do they need people to vote based off their constituent bases or based off of the party agenda) and what initiatives they push for. Now, in practice, some presidents have been able to relatively unify both their office along with Congress, but, more often than not, it just isn't the case.

With all that said, saying that a democrat signed something into office doesn't necessarily mean that the party supported it. Now, I wasn't following politics at the time, but, if you look strictly at the voting records, it looked like an issue that the party was relatively neutral on (at least in the House) and, so, allowed their members to vote based off their constituent bases rather than off party lines. Then again, this may have been before the time where the strength of Party Whips came into effect and the parties started to pretty much always vote based off of party stances rather than how their constituents may would like. Regardless, you can say that Clinton supported it, but saying that the Dems supported it is not an entirely true statement at all.

A dem signed the thing into law.
And you can bet a lot of those dems who did vote against it were doing so to save their own asses in the next election.

Nobody is denying that Clinton signed it into law? The issue is that you cannot draw the conclusion that "dems supported NAFTA" as a result of this action. I clearly explained why in my post, now, if you care to clearly post reason why you believe the party did support the position (again, I did not follow politics in 1993, that may very well have been the case), then please post your reasons. However, as it stands (your reasoning appearing to solely be based upon Clinton's action), your reasoning is lacking and I have clearly countered it with a reasonable understanding.

You realize that when people "vote to save their own asses"...which is voting in a way that the people that vote for you agree with...that is LITERALLY the basis of our representative democratic process. You vote for people that you believe will vote in a manner congruent with your beliefs. If a politician does NOT vote in a "way to save their own asses" (vote in a way their voter base doesn't agree with) it means they aren't doing their jobs and SHOULDN'T get re-elected. Do you even understand the way our political system operates?

Was NAFTA enacted while a dem ran the country?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Bill signed it into law.

You were wrong I was right. That's because you're retarded and I'm not.

You're a fucking idiot. You claimed that "democrats voted against it".

whats it gonna be, dickhead

They did. If you can prove most Democrats voted for it, post the numbers. Or, go kill yourself.

I would like to double and triple down on this. The wingnuts are very mistaken

Since I posted the numbers, you're not going far out on a limb.

Not to mention that the idiots who claimed otherwise fled like cockroaches when the light went on.

Bullshit. Some of us have lives. You stated, categorically, that "democrats voted against NAFTA". Yeah, you're right. Some of them did.

Unlike in Obamacare - where NOT ONE republican can voted for that bullshit.

 

[Fang]

This is a pretty big endorsement. This is a man that understands what real racism looks like, not the phony BLM and Oscars Awards shit of today.

 

[Never3ndr]

I thought you were asking for evidence that Democrats voted against NAFTA. If that was not what you were asking then feel free to disregard my post.

My position is since a dem was the one who signed it into to law that obviously means it had support of dems.

We, as the people, usually think that who has the presidential seat, has the leadership of the party. We expect them to lead both their party and Congress into following the "gameplan" of how they want the country to be ran. This is just plain false, however, and shows a lack of basic understanding of how our government operates.

Generally speaking, the party leaders are all in places of power throughout Congress. You usually don't see party leaders running for a presidential office...why? Well, being president puts you at odds with Congress members more often than not. Both on the basis of trying to maintain the influence you have coupled with a basic belief in how our government was constructed (we have 3 branches of government built to counter each other, not 1 branch built to lead). These guys are usually the ones who influence the party and can great effect how they vote (do they need people to vote based off their constituent bases or based off of the party agenda) and what initiatives they push for. Now, in practice, some presidents have been able to relatively unify both their office along with Congress, but, more often than not, it just isn't the case.

With all that said, saying that a democrat signed something into office doesn't necessarily mean that the party supported it. Now, I wasn't following politics at the time, but, if you look strictly at the voting records, it looked like an issue that the party was relatively neutral on (at least in the House) and, so, allowed their members to vote based off their constituent bases rather than off party lines. Then again, this may have been before the time where the strength of Party Whips came into effect and the parties started to pretty much always vote based off of party stances rather than how their constituents may would like. Regardless, you can say that Clinton supported it, but saying that the Dems supported it is not an entirely true statement at all.

A dem signed the thing into law.
And you can bet a lot of those dems who did vote against it were doing so to save their own asses in the next election.

Nobody is denying that Clinton signed it into law? The issue is that you cannot draw the conclusion that "dems supported NAFTA" as a result of this action. I clearly explained why in my post, now, if you care to clearly post reason why you believe the party did support the position (again, I did not follow politics in 1993, that may very well have been the case), then please post your reasons. However, as it stands (your reasoning appearing to solely be based upon Clinton's action), your reasoning is lacking and I have clearly countered it with a reasonable understanding.

You realize that when people "vote to save their own asses"...which is voting in a way that the people that vote for you agree with...that is LITERALLY the basis of our representative democratic process. You vote for people that you believe will vote in a manner congruent with your beliefs. If a politician does NOT vote in a "way to save their own asses" (vote in a way their voter base doesn't agree with) it means they aren't doing their jobs and SHOULDN'T get re-elected. Do you even understand the way our political system operates?

Was NAFTA enacted while a dem ran the country?

Maybe you didn't read my post.

How, exactly, does who signed a bill indicate party stances on an issue (especially given a clear record to the contrary)? Please, in a detailed post (more than the two lines your brain seems capable of generating), explain why the President runs the party instead of the majority / minority leaders Congress. I've already offered a counter explanation. If you think you are right all you need to do is tell us why. Absolutely nobody has argued with who has signed the bill.

 

[HappyJoy]

You were wrong I was right. That's because you're retarded and I'm not.

You're a fucking idiot. You claimed that "democrats voted against it".

whats it gonna be, dickhead

They did. If you can prove most Democrats voted for it, post the numbers. Or, go kill yourself.

I would like to double and triple down on this. The wingnuts are very mistaken

Since I posted the numbers, you're not going far out on a limb.

Not to mention that the idiots who claimed otherwise fled like cockroaches when the light went on.

Bullshit. Some of us have lives. You stated, categorically, that "democrats voted against NAFTA". Yeah, you're right. Some of them did.

Unlike in Obamacare - where NOT ONE republican can voted for that bullshit.

Most Democrats voted against NAFTA, almost every Republican voted for. Deal with it.