In Trump ....We Trust

[Jeanpaul123]

Trump has already reportedly committed an impeachable offense, trying to use the office of the President for financial gain.

https://thinkprogress.org/president-...446#.vifokbl4s

This is straight up asking for a bribe.

asking is not the same as doing

[Shawn Hopkins]

asking is not the same as doing

Asking as in soliciting a bribe, which is illegal even if you don't get it.

[Iron Maiden]

asking is not the same as doing

All you have to prove is intent. Blago offered Obama's Senate seat and got sent to the Big House for 14 years.

[Tami]

Trump has already reportedly committed an impeachable offense, trying to use the office of the President for financial gain.

https://thinkprogress.org/president-...446#.vifokbl4s

This is straight up asking for a bribe.

To be fair, a report coming out of that country denies it ever happened.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Nice opinion piece about whether the Electoral College has a duty to stop Trump. Before anyone has a kitten, it points out why they won't, which is that electors are chosen for partisan loyalties.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...sident/508310/

[Shawn Hopkins]

To be fair, a report coming out of that country denies it ever happened.

Oh well. There will be more.

[Hanson724]

Now are you gonna claim that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA?

You should tell that Bill Clinton.

"In a few moments, I will sign the North American free trade act into law. NAFTA will tear clown trade barriers between our three nations. It will create the world's largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone. The environmental and labor side agreements negotiated by our administration will make this agreement a force for social progress as well as economic growth. Already the confidence we've displayed by ratifying NAFTA has begun to bear fruit. We are now making real progress toward a worldwide trade agreement so significant that it could make the material gains of NAFTA for our country look small by comparison." - Bill Clinton, December 8, 1993


I added the emphasis so you can see where he took credit for signing it. Bush signed it ceremoniuosly; Clinton signed it into law.

[Iron Maiden]

Thanks for clearing that up. I remember watching that debate and both Bush and Clinton were very pro on NAFTA. The only one that was against it was Ross Perot and his famous quote of the "Giant sucking sound going South".

But even with that, Many more jobs are being lost to technology advances as in an extremely efficient automatic process that eliminates the number of humans to do the job. Locally, some of the steel plants around here eliminated certain processes that were out of date, replaced it with new equipment and the departments involved get downsized.

[MidTierHero]

Now are you gonna claim that it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA?

...

Clinton signed NAFTA into law in 1993.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...igned-into-law

[Tami]

Want to Boycott Trump? There's an App For That

As Democratic lawmakers debate how much to fight President-elect Donald Trump's agenda in Congress, some voters want to go even further by organizing protests and boycotts.

While it would be easy enough to avoid Trump's hotels or golf resorts, Trump has less-obvious ties to many other businesses. So a Democratic super PAC created an app to help would-be boycotters identify hundreds of Trump-related companies.

I wonder how extensive the list is.

[Carabas]

...

Clinton signed NAFTA into law in 1993.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...igned-into-law

He had no hand in it.

You're confusing NAFTA with the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

The former was created by George HW Bush (and some others from around the world) created it.
The Senate then created the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which made it American law, and Bill Clinton's total involvement is not vetoing it.
And if he had vetoed it it would just have gone back to the Senate for another draft because Bush had already signed the international treaty obliging the USA to play ball.

[CenturianSpy]

He had no hand in it.

You're confusing NAFTA with the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

The former was created by George HW Bush (and some others from around the world) created it.
The Senate then created the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which made it American law, and Bill Clinton's total involvement is not vetoing it.
And if he had vetoed it it would just have gone back to the Senate for another draft because Bush had already signed the international treaty obliging the USA to play ball.

President Clinton sent it to be ratified by Congress. He also added two parts of the plan involving environmental issues and labor concerns, the NAAEC and NAALC. This was done by his team who renegotiated the treaty's terms. President Clinton could also have pocket vetoed the whole plan (he could have put it in his desk and never send it to Congress for ratification). There is no question that President Bush 41 started it and his team negotiated the bulk of it, but to say that President Clinton had nothing to with it or couldn't stop it is clearly erroneous. NAFTA is the fault of both parties.

[Shawn Hopkins]

President Clinton sent it to be ratified by Congress. He also added two parts of the plan involving environmental issues and labor concerns, the NAAEC and NAALC. This was done by his team who renegotiated the treaty's terms. President Clinton could also have pocket vetoed the whole plan (he could have put it in his desk and never send it to Congress for ratification). There is no question that President Bush 41 started it and his team negotiated the bulk of it, but to say that President Clinton had nothing to with it or couldn't stop it is clearly erroneous. NAFTA is the fault of both parties.

Sounds like Clinton tried to make it less bad, though. His involvement was unscrewing it a bit. So why has Hillary been personally blamed for the whole thing for the last two years?

W. used a pocket veto and the House just came back with a nearly identical bill that addressed a few of his concerns. I think Clinton could have altered NAFTA this way, but not killed it.

[CenturianSpy]

W. used a pocket veto and the House just came back with a nearly identical bill that addressed a few of his concerns. I think Clinton could have altered NAFTA this way, but not killed it.

Treaties are Constitutionally different. Only the President can start a treaty, only a President can send the treaty to Congress (specifically the Senate) to be ratified by super majority. A pocket veto would have killed it...until President W. Bush 43 would have probably (definitely) renegotiated it. Both parties (majority-wise) wanted it.

[The Darknight Detective]

President Clinton sent it to be ratified by Congress. He also added two parts of the plan involving environmental issues and labor concerns, the NAAEC and NAALC. This was done by his team who renegotiated the treaty's terms. President Clinton could also have pocket vetoed the whole plan (he could have put it in his desk and never send it to Congress for ratification). There is no question that President Bush 41 started it and his team negotiated the bulk of it, but to say that President Clinton had nothing to with it or couldn't stop it is clearly erroneous. NAFTA is the fault of both parties.

Correct. In fact, I remember Al Gore vigorously debating Ross Perot regarding it on Larry King's show.