“No, no, dig up, stupid!”
I’ll use her own words: she believes that Wall Streeters should regulate Wall Street and that Wall Street didn’t cause the financial crash.
That’s her public position. Privately she’s for TPP and it will only take cosmetic changes for her to support it.
Open borders, like many other issues, is what we knew Democrats supported by which they vehemently denied. So in the future, when we make the accusation, it’s true in her case and probably true of any other Democrat.
This kind of crap is exactly why Congress hasn’t done anything useful in years. Politics is about making deals. When you make deals you compromise, and you can’t compromise under the stare of the extremists (on both sides) who are usually the noisiest. And who usually are not the majority of the country.
As for open borders, she said sometime in the future, with open trade. Clearly this is a dream of an EU like situation for the Americas. Future - not next January.
Kind of a nice dream, I think, unless you are scared of Latinos.
What do open borders mean? Are you saying Hillary Clinton is for a policy that eliminates the INS and similar agencies, abandons all border controls, and gives citizenship to anyone in the world who wants it? If not, what are you saying?
It means free, unfettered movement of goods and people into the US from whichever countries are part of the pact, much like the EU, as Voyager pointed out.
Also, she’s pledged not to deport non-criminals, which does pretty much mean unfettered immigration. You get here, you can stay. That’s her public position on immigration:
1 and 2 Again, what did Sanders mean when he leveled both criticisms at Clinton? That was pretty much his attack on her. It would have been seriously amplified by this leak. Bad timing by the leakers.
- Very few voters outside the small core primary voting Democratic base agree with even setting ‘open borders’ as a goal for ‘someday’. Many voters, well beyond the Trump base, react quite negatively to the phrase ‘open borders’. A lot of Democrats including Clinton have been at pains to make clear it’s not what they favor, contrary to Republicans accusing them of supporting ‘open borders’. And as far as saying ‘well what does that really mean?’, a lot of politics is about catch phrases or broad brushes. I’m actually surprised she would have used the phrase.
But again I’m not saying it’s particularly deadly to her now in the whole context of the race v Trump.
if I may … please include actual info in your post. The rest of us don’t necessarily want to click to learn what you’re saying. Besides, in 2 weeks the link might be dead. Thanks.
As a public service: The Chicago Tribune reports “Billy Bush suspended by NBC over Trump tape” With not much more meat in the article.
As it’s a show I would never watch, I didn’t know…
[The married father of three is the nephew of former President George H.W. Bush.](The married father of three is the nephew of former President George H.W. Bush.)
While it seems like she was on record previously supporting the TPP, she’s staked her remaining reputation on being against it. Since these speeches were made several years before the TPP was even negotiated, the speeches themselves don’t tie her irrevocably to supporting the TPP itself. She doesn’t have much choice now if elected but to either scrap the TPP or try to re-negotiate it.
Given the full context of her statement, she seemed to envision a North American or maybe North/South American Union similar to the EU and the Schengen Agreement. So, even with that statement in her speech, she can still credibly claim that she is not in favor of open borders any time soon, but only once certain security or economic benchmarks are in place first in the framework of this kind of multi-national political or economic organization.
In the context of a race vs. Trump none of this matters. But this stuff is relevant to her governing. It tells us that whatever policies she tries to sell will not be sold with anything even approaching honesty. Her claims about the benefits of her proposals should be disregarded.
Hoping the Burnett people are able to figure out what to do to get the video out. My brother was reading something to me saying that they had a lot of him using the N word too.
Gofundme for paying their legal bills maybe.
Sorry. I was trying to create some suspense.
Look - you’re the one who claims that these quotes are going to lose Hilary “significant” support. I’m interested in the quotes because they will determine the substance of your claim. The onus is on you to support your argument. Luckily for you someone else is trying.
Of course, thanks to gathnet, we can see for ourselves that this claim is nonsense.
So it won’t make her supporters angry, it will just make them not vote for her? Right.
No, random twitter and facebook posts don’t actually demonstrate that Clinton is losing votes.
No, no - I was refering to John Mace’s summation of Hillary’s statement, which you kindly quoted for me and which you insist is authoritative. John said, “2. Her vision is a for hemisphere of open borders and free trade.” John went to point to this as a statement specifically as support for open borders with Mexico.
That’s why I brought up the point that progressives aren’t scared of being overrun by Mexicans, unlike a certain other Party we could mention.
It is kind of weird though, how you’re so convinced these words will upset Hillary supporters but you don’t appear to have actually known what the words were until someone else looked them up for you.
AHHH - the sweet smell of primary (albeit dubious) sources! Thanks, gathnet.
And now that we can see the words themselves, it’s obvious what a total nothingburger this is.
- The public and private positions - it’s patently clear that Hillary is not saying that it’s ok to lie in public or to never tell outsiders your true intentions. She’s clearly talking about how the punters get nervous sitting through tough negotiations and so it’s better to hold those negotiations privately and stick with simple public statements.
Again, this is not something grownups can complain about, given that every grownup who’s ever held a job has experience first hand with this sort of thing. It’s call managing expectations and staying on message. No politician has ever negotiated a treaty in public and none of them are going to start.
The only way this would turn off voters is if they allow the Clinton scandal sheets to manage the expectations that it’s another Clinton scandal. But just like all the rest - that dog won’t hunt.
2. The hemispheric common market quote - crikey, it really is a Coke commercial. Imagine all the people - open trade and open boarders, with endless free green energy in a golden land of opportunity, some time in the future. There’s probably even ice cream.
What a fucking nightmare that would be. Count me right the fuck out on that. Green energy? So I can’t even belch coal dust on my neighbors? Shit. And my neighbors are Mexican now. Or Guatamalan or something. Same difference. Why the fuck do I want to provide opportunities for everyone. Fuck those fuckers! Right? I’m not sharing my ice cream with those godless Mexicans. And those Canadian fuckers can fuck right off, too.
Yeah, this is totally going to kill Hillary’s chances. I bet she loses all the votes. I’m going to vote Donald now while there’s still time.
I guess since you do not see how this is an issue that means that this will be a non-issue for everyone else.
But please also remember that I said this revelation would kill her chances in a normal election. No one is going to switch their vote to Trump and that was kind of my point.
It’s weird that you think I did not know what her words were. I did not quote them in my first post because it was a post on a message board. I wasn’t writing a research paper. I would have followed up with quotes when other people asked for them, but other posters beat me to it.
LSLguy wrote:“Then again, Bill always did have kinda skanky taste. He could’ve had truly world-class supermodel type women.”
You were saying?
The LDS church-owned Deseret News believes Trump should resign in candidacy. They pointedly declined to endorse Clinton.
The Desert News hasn’t weighed in on a presidential election in 80s years.
It’s possible that this could actually have some influence on the race by encouraging more Mormons to not vote for Trump. Although the Deseret News is carefully claiming that this was their decision and not that of “the Church,” it will be seen that way by many of the members.
As I’ve posted, this could affect both Utah and Arizona. In addition, about 5% of Alaskans are nominally Mormons. Probably half or so of those are active, so that’s 2.5% to 3%.
The latest poll from pre-pussygate early October gives Trump 37%, Clinton 34% and Johnson at 10%. The undecided are a large factor, 18% say none or undecided. The majority of these lean Republican.
Poll of Mormons? Poll of Utah? Arizona?
I don’t particularly disagree. But if the wheels don’t come completely off for the Republicans, looking less likely for the time being given Trump’s reasonably effective debate performance, they’ll hold at least the House and she’ll have little chance of enacting a left leaning legislative agenda. She’s less of an ideologue than Obama, so might adapt to that better than he has, that’s the positive way to say she doesn’t particularly believe in anything (of course it also depends how willing Republicans are to compromise which is part, not all, of why the works are completely gummed up now).
Both parties now lack votes in Congress for more free trade agreements, but repealing existing ones isn’t likely. The ‘elite consensus’ in favor of free trade is basically correct. It’s counterproductive to actively reverse it and I don’t think that will happen. Likewise scapegoating the financial system is counterproductive and I think there’s an underlying consensus against that also. Immigration is likely to remain a real flash point though.
The key to Clinton’s success will be using those relationships she forged in the Senate to their utmost. She’s never going to be able to rally the public the way a Reagan or her husband could.