Bam! Joy Reid Slaps Down R-Idiot Hoekstra On His Claim That Bill Clinton Negotiated NAFTA

[stopbush]

By playing video of Poppy Bush advocating for NAFTA. Joy pointed out that Poppy negotiated the treaty, the Congress ratified the treaty and Clinton signed the treaty that the Congress ratified.

After all that, the R-Idiot (Pete Hoekstra) still insisted that "Clinton pushed for that deal" and that he negotiated it.

Unbelieveable.

Oh, and the R-Idiot felt the need to preface his remarks by stating "those of us who follow Jesus Christ found the comments made in your previous segment to be offensive."

[AmericanActivist]

1. Facts, George H. W. Bush signed NAFTA

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/

https://www.google.com/search?q=george+h+w+bush+signed+nafta&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS627US627&hl=en-US&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV65XYmfHPAhXNZj4KHXfjCb4Q_AUICCgC&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=TXYw_wSN8YSJgM%3A

[JRLeft]

24. Wrong Bill Clinton signed NAFTA

https://m.

[PoliticAverse]

30. Bush signed the agreement and Clinton signed it into law. n/t

[JRLeft]

32. And pushed for it to be passed.

[CentralMass]

31. George H.. W. Bush signed the treaty portion of the bill

with the member countries before he left office. The Vote and signing if the bill spilled over into Clintons first term. It would be disingenuous however to c k aim the Bill Clinton tin was not pro-Nafta.

[sarae]

3. That was amazing.

I noticed he turned redder and redder throughout the whole thing. LOL

Also, I like how no one responded to his comments about feeling offended.

Did he suddenly want people to be "politically correct"?

[stopbush]

6. I hope for a future where the claim that your life is guided by make believe personages

is met with ridicule by the majority of American citizens.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Another republican myth exposed...

Thanks for that de-bunking, Joy!

I remember a number of years ago, the republicans were trying to hang Ruby Ridge around Bill Clinton's neck, too... That was also Poppy Bush's debacle!

[stopbush]

5. Hell, they try to hang Katrina and 9/11 around Obama's neck.

[BlueCaliDem]

26. They are shameless in their stupidity and stark partisanship. Party over country, I guess.

And then they go on a rant that the Democrats put Party over country.

Uneffingbelievable.

[uponit7771]

10. +1

[duffyduff]

7. People forget that NAFTA was an issue in the 1992 presidential contest.

Of course George I negotiated that trade deal. Clinton wasn't president then.

Third-party candidate Ross Perot made a huge issue out of it in one of the debates with the famous "giant sucking sound" remarks.

[susanna]

19. I remember it as well!

on edit: forgot a word in subject

[former9thward]

8. Why are you trying to whitewash Clinton's role?

Clinton modified NAFTA and then did push for its approval. That is not myth, it is fact.

Clinton in Final Push for NAFTA : Trade: The President tells a small-business group that prosperity hinges on pact with Mexico and Canada. The vote will be close, as lawmakers slowly take sides.

WASHINGTON — With the ranks of uncommitted lawmakers dwindling rapidly, President Clinton embarked Monday on a final push for the North American Free Trade Agreement, declaring to small-business proprietors that only by expanding its markets can the nation increase its prosperity.

"There is no way any wealthy country in this world can increase jobs and incomes without increasing the number of people who buy that nation's products and services," Clinton told 400 small-business leaders at Washington's Museum of American History. "It is clear and self-evident."

To reassure doubters, he emphasized that the United States could pull out of the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada with six months' notice. "If all the naysayers turn out to be right, the treaty gives us a right to withdraw in six months," he said. "Why don't we just wait and see whether we're right or they're right?"

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-16/news/mn-57517_1_final-push

[uponit7771]

11. Sophistry, of course he did ... it was already signed done deal... he was supposed to do what ...

... after it was signed?

tia

[former9thward]

14. Nope it was far from a done deal.

He had to add two more agreements -- on labor and the environment -- to try and get reluctant Democratic congress people to go along. It did not get passed until almost a year into his administration. He signed it in December 1993 after almost a year in office. Why deny history?

[uponit7771]

16. I'm denying the story I'm hearing from detractors on this subject, I don't trust it one bit

... especially unsourced and no perspective.

NAFTA was poppy Bush's deal and Clinton had NAFTA changed for the better, that part no one is saying didn't happen.

I'm not placing ONUS on Clinton after Joy's segment until I read something different in regards to what he could've done and what he couldn't relating to this agreement.

[BlueCaliDem]

27. From all the posts I've read of yours, former9thforward, I get a picture you don't like Dems

do you? Granted, I haven't read ALL of them (because I usually skip any with your screen name on it) but from the ones I can't avoid reading, it doesn't appear you like Dems much.

Why deny history, indeed.

[former9thward]

37. Good attempt to change the subject.

But not much else.

[BlueCaliDem]

38. Well, at least you didn't deny it so it was no waste of time for me.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

[NurseJackie]

40. Well done, you.

[stopbush]

13. Poppy Bush signed the draft agreement in Dec 1992.

Clinton added two side agreements that dealt with fair labor practices and environmental issues. To imply -as do Rs- that NAFTA was Clinton's idea and that he was its chief negotiator is wrong.

BTW - economists think that on the whole, NAFTA has been a net gain for Americans. Some put it at a 95% success.

[former9thward]

15. If your last sentence is true then you should be praising Clinton for his role.

If NAFTA is great then Bush as chief negotiator should get the credit. You are trying to have it both ways.

[stopbush]

20. The last sentence IS true.

I think it's interesting that the Rs try to use NAFTA to attract a specific blue-collar vote by claiming Clinton ruined their lives with NAFTA. These same politicians are waiting for the election to be over so they can pass TPP.

My OP makes no claim to my being for or against NAFTA. It simply reports on another RWer trying to use a lie about how NAFTA was passed as a bludgeon against Hillary.

[Caliman73]

21. Not necessarily true

Some economists praise the deal and often praise free trade. Other economists have mixed reaction. NAFTA lowered prices for consumers. It did not create the mass exodus of jobs that some critics state, but it did create some movement of jobs out of the US. For how it was presented, the results are flat.

The major problem with any trade deal that will lead to a reductions on labor force in certain industries and they often require investment by the government to offset the losses and retool and retrain workers to other industries. That was short changed in the 90's mostly by that did not invest in education, training, and job placement for affected workers.

We are one of the only major industrialized nations that does not have a national labor policy. The problem is that we rarely take care of our own people. They are usually on their own to pick up the pieces.

[Cary]

41. If you are in an important election do you:

Last edited Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

A) Spin issues in a negative way against your candidate to sow discord and discontent? Or,

B) Find positive things about your candidate and generally try to make people feel good about their choice?

[former9thward]

42. I thought this was supposed to be an intelligent discussion board.

Where people discuss issues and facts. Was I wrong? Also this is about Bill Clinton not Hillary Clinton.

[Cary]

43. You didn't answer my question

[Cooley Hurd]

9. He was responding to John Fugelsang's comment about Stephen Baldwin and Jesus

Fugelsang said that Baldwin uses Christ as a "mascot".

Joy had John back on and he, eloquently as always, explained to Joy that he was referring to Christian hypocrites, NOT Christians in general. Also, John said he told the same thing to Hoekstra in the hallway previous to the last segment and Hoekstra and Hoekstra thanked him and slunk away (not before John wished him a beautiful Sunday)!!

[rurallib]

33. yep - I roflmao also

[aikoaiko]

12. Its like they have no memory of Ross Perot hammering Bush I and taking Rep votes

He probably took some votes for Clinton, too, but a lot of conservatives were very unhappy with Bush's support for NAFTA, his endorsement of "the New World Order", and his rejection of the NRA.

[Tommy2Tone]

17. True but Bill still signed the treaty

He said he only did it because it meant jobs. I think the jobs went to Mexico as the treaty was used to move many jobs from the US to Mexico.

[BootinUp]

18. Why are you attacking Republicans? /sarcasm

Last edited Sun Oct 23, 2016, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

There are so many "fake Democrats" you could be attacking.

i guess i should have put a sarcasm tag. fixed

[FairWinds]

22. The entire DC establishment . .

including Clinton and many other Dems, pushed
for NAFTA labor standards and rights that are entirely
inadequate.

Which explains why the Mexican people work at the point
of a gun, and US workers are well on their way to that unhappy
condition as well.

And that is the real trouble with the TPP as well - (that and
corporate governance)

[SCVDem]

23. Look. Outsourcing!

We need to be more concerned with automation replacing people.

Drive anything for a living? Good luck.

We live to serve our robot overlords.

[stopbush]

25. If the idea of a basic living wage catches hold, I welcome the robots.

We've all been indoctrinated to believe we all need to have jobs, that we all need to be working to make a contribution to society.

In fact, what we need is money to exist in a capitalistic society. The job is just the way most of us get the money we need. The ultra rich don't need jobs. They use money to make money. If you have money, you don't need a job or even a career.

Most of us are stuck in poor-paying jobs, making little if any contribution to society via our jobs. We hold onto those jobs, hoping for some incremental increase in our earnings that will move us up the economic ladder. The truth is that the vast majority of people never rise above the economic class into which they were born. We'd be better off admitting that truth and getting away from our present capitalistic model that depends on a modern-day class of serfs holding crappy jobs, supporting an elite of historically rich people and only occasionally rewarding the exception who is able to climb out of their economic tier and thrive.

Giving people a basic living wage would be a step in that direction.

[demgrrrll]

28. Great post.

[yallerdawg]

29. Most everyone I know has a subsistence wage - slave wage.

We live paycheck to paycheck, looking forward only to our annual cost-of-living raise, and annual tax return.

Cheap goods from exploited workers around the world keeps American consumer capitalism in place, but it will all come crashing down when we can't buy - or produce - anymore.

This is not going to end well for many of us. But end it will.

[ColemanMaskell]

39. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile increasing the minimum wage to a reasonable living wage would be a good start, along with universal health care, universal education, and child care.

As far as the conservative/reactionary goal of rolling the world back to the 1950's, I'd like to see us get back the progressive income tax structure we used to have, when the wealthy paid taxes up to about a 50% rate. That would be reactionary, but that's not what they're talking about doing . . .

[nolabear]

34. I knew she'd bring Fugelsang back to straighten out that religion remark.

I've listened to his radio show since its first day. John is the son of an ex nun and an ex priest. He's a religious scholar, though not a traditional believer. He's got more respect for people's right to follow the tenets of their chosen religion than just about anyone I know of. As he pointed out, he's against hypocrisy.

[tonyt53]

35. I was watching that when it happened. He still denied it.

[duncang]

36. Side note with poppy bush and his cronies

I am going to have to ask for confirmation or debunking again on this. (Like I did earlier on another post.) It was just a small back page article in the Houston Chronicle way back.

IIRC when bush was negotiating for nafta there was a clause in it to use a certain maritime company for transporting oil from Mexico to the U.S.. The bush sr. staff received stock from that company and just had to pay for it with no interest at a later date. When the nafta deal bush sr. signed it his staff made a lot of money selling off the stock and pocketing the profit.