|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 12/31/2015 : 17:03:27
|
|
How much do you know about "The Trans-Pacific Partnership"? How does the presidential candidate you favor stand on it? Don't you think you should know?
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2015 : 17:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
How much do you know about "The Trans-Pacific Partnership"? How does the presidential candidate you favor stand on it? Don't you think you should know?
|
Both Bernie and Hillary are against it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2016 : 11:12:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Both Bernie and Hillary are against it. |
Oh? Is that true? Perhaps you can give me a reason why "Politifact.com" would say "she has flip flopped on the topic"? Are you saying that because she hasn't directly come out and said "I'm in favor for it" and to you that means "she's against it"? What am I and others missing? I don't want to be wrong when I can be corrected.
The same link writes this "she would reserve judgment until the deal was finalized" and "she praised the negotiations while serving as secretary of state".. Well, this scum puppet Hillary doesn't have me left scratching my head. I'll take her support, when she was secretary of state, for the TPP exactly for what it was at the time, which is support and that is SHE SUPPORTS IT and I could never vote for another two faced conniving politician like her, no matter what. I wish you would not believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is ever in your best interest or something you should ever do.
As for Bernie's position, those interested can look it up further but here is something.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2016 : 11:53:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Kil
Both Bernie and Hillary are against it. |
Oh? Is that true? Perhaps you can give me a reason why "Politifact.com" would say "she has flip flopped on the topic"? Are you saying that because she hasn't directly come out and said "I'm in favor for it" and to you that means "she's against it"? What am I and others missing? I don't want to be wrong when I can be corrected. |
What you are missing is that she has come out against it. Even politifact says this:
| While some pundits have painted Clinton’s transition as political -- an appeal to liberals who oppose the deal -- she might have legitimately changed her mind. It’s possible the deal looks dramatically different than it did at the early stages of negotiations, when Clinton was at the State Department. The negotiations have been conducted in secret, so it’s hard for us to assess that ourselves. Also, as secretary of state, she represented the Obama administration, which remains wholeheartedly in favor of the deal. |
I mean, for fucks sake, she is against the TPP deal. I don't really care what turned her against the deal. The fact remains, she's not for it.
SS:
...and I could never vote for another two faced conniving politician like her, no matter what. I wish you would not believe that voting for the lesser of two evils is ever in your best interest or something you should ever do. |
You can bet your ass that I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. There is more at stake than whether I don't agree with her on several things. (I don't agree with Obama on several things too, but millions more Americans now have access to healthcare because of him.) There are supreme court nominees to think about with the court already tilted toward the right. There are health and womens issues to consider. Global warming and science in general needs to be considered. (Unlike Bernie, she is pro-GMO.) The deal with Iran, too. The list goes on. Sure. I'd prefer Bernie. But if the choice is between Hillary or any of the people running on the GOP side of things, the choice is clear.
And look. It's not about voting for the lesser of two evils. (I kinda hate that phrase because it suggests that pragmatism should play no part when considering a candidate. It should.) It's about voting for a viable candidate (one who can actually win) and who I have more agreement with than not when compared with the person running against that candidate. I will probably vote for Bernie in the primaries. But if Bernie loses to Hillary, I'm not going to sit at home or vote for someone who has no chance of winning. That's just dumb. We got W that way.
Let me add that if people actually got off their ass and created a coalition party that is competitive on a national level, and that party was more representative of my views, I'd probably vote that way. I think it could be done, but at this time that is not the reality. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2016 : 12:47:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I'll take her support, when she was secretary of state, for the TPP exactly for what it was at the time, which is support and that is SHE SUPPORTS IT... |
There are two problems here:
1) Do sitting cabinet secretaries have a long-standing tradition of speaking out against polices the President favors? If so, then yes, you can take stated support as support. If not, then you need to consider the idea that they have jobs to do that they may not personally agree with (just like I'm sure that there are plenty of cops who don't think pot should be illegal, but arrest people for possession anyway).
2) If Clinton's current publicly stated opinion is that she does NOT support the TPP, then your tense is wrong. Where in the world did the idea that our politicians CANNOT change their minds - or otherwise be branded as "flip-floppers" - come from? Maintaining a position in the face of changing circumstances or evidence is something we - as skeptics - generally abhor. If Clinton saw the details of the TPP change as time went on, and so decided to not support it any longer, we should be celebrating her lack of dogmatism, not vilifying her for it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Trans-Pacific Partnership
