The difference between Bernie and Hillary

I was listening to "Democray Now" this moring on KPFK in LA on the way to work. They were discussing the convoluted passage of 'Fast Track' authority which a representative of the Cato Institute and another of Public Citizen.

To debate] the TPP and fast track, we’re joined by two guests in Washington, D.C. Bill Watson is trade policy analyst of the Cato Institute, and Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen.

Link to full transcript: www.democracynow.org...

Link to video: www.democracynow.org...
(as it's a daily show - the date for the program is June 24, 2015.

I'm really not interested in the debate here (it's informative but not unexpected) between the Right (CATO) and Leftish (Public Citizen) but in the responses from Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders.

It's interesting to me to see how Senator Sanders talks about the substance of the issue whereas Ms. Clinton is merely selling herself. I find that very telling when it comes to true intention.

What do you think:

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS:

In my view, this trade agreement will continue the policies of NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China, agreements that have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.

We need a new trade policy in America, a policy that represents working families and not just the big money interests.

I strongly disagree with the majority leader, who called this a great day for America. It is not a great day. It’s a great day for the big money interests, not a great day for working families.

HILLARY CLINTON:

First, let me start by saying no president would be a tougher negotiator on behalf of American workers, either with our trading partners or Republicans on Capitol Hill, than I would be.

In my time, eight years in the Senate, I voted for some trade agreements, and I voted against others. I think I have a pretty good idea of what we can do to meet the tests that I believe any trade agreement, especially TPP, must meet.

It needs to, number one, protect American workers. Number two, it needs to raise wages and create good jobs at home. Number three, it needs to be in our national security interest. I’ve been saying that for months.

On the one hand Substance and the other Self-Promotion.

I know neither is perfect and both are smart - but I don't want a "hedger" & "triangulator" in the White House, I'd rather someone honesty pragmatic and on the PEOPLEs side not their own side.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I couldn't agree more. Hillary is out to sell herself, which is what every other presidential candidate (besides Bernie) seems to be doing. It's the way to win elections. Or so they think... Go Bernie!

a reply to: FyreByrd

> no president would be a tougher negotiator
> on behalf of American workers

What negotiation?

Did the President (her husband) negotiate on NAFTA?
No, he just signed it into law 1993, as everyone knew
that he would. In doing so, he quite literally slashed
the economic throat of the United States. We've been
hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations ever since.

Until 1993, the United States of America was the
world's economic king, and our people enjoyed
the highest standard of living in recorded history.
But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually
removing all trade protections that ensured
our general prosperity.

So far, I haven't heard a single presidential candidate,
other than Bernie mention now NAFTA hurt America.

Since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, North American
workers have experienced downward pressure on wages
and a tougher organizing environment. Twenty years later,
we find an unbalanced system in which profits soar even as
workers take home a diminishing share of the national income.

www.epi.org...

NAFTA ....caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as production moved to Mexico. Most of these losses came in California, Texas, Michigan, and other states where manufacturing is concentrated. To be sure, there were some job gains along the border in service and retail sectors resulting from increased trucking activity, but these gains are small in relation to the loses, and are in lower paying occupations. The vast majority of workers who lost jobs from NAFTA suffered a permanent loss of income.

If nothing is done to correct this impending nightmare,
just about every American family will suffer in one way
or another, and most will find the experience immediately
catastrophic, followed by a permanent reduction of living
standard that cannot be recovered from in theirs, or even
their children's lifetimes.

originally posted by: wasaka

It's not about her husband - if you can't stay on the topic - please don't participate.

Someplace along the line national politicians started pandering to the idiotic ideas of the great unwashed, mindless masses. I suppose that after Truman (Kennedy?) the big blowjob got into high gear. Instead of leading us to face unpleasant problems facing the nation, the elf serving politicos like Hillary started blowing smoke up our ... well, trousers. And a dude like Bernie ... ? If he can swing 20% of the progressives he'll be lucky. NOBODY wants the truth in this (ha ha) democracy.

In an attempt to get this thread on track.

Senator Sanders is speaking extemporaneously and sincerely whereas Ms. Clinton is reading 'copy' from a PR firm. The whole tone and presentation by Ms. Clinton is designed to 'not upset anyone'. Bernie on the other hand speaks openly and intelligently concerned about the issue not his 'likeability'.

a reply to: FyreByrd

After reading the thread title my initial thought was, "the difference between night and day".

Its to late Bernie TPP is going through and so will TISA, TTIP before he gets into office.

Clinton will win in my opinion because shes a woman and she has a nicer smile and more charisma for office. Bernie woulda won in the early 1900's but people just don't care anymore. If it doesn't appeal to their sense of self worth or make an emotional appeal to them individually the average American could care less if there city was falling apart beneath them.

Me and mine! Me and mine! I, me, myself, me, me, me!

And another major difference.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
originally posted by: wasaka

It's not about her husband - if you can't stay on the topic - please don't participate.

I agree it is not about her husband.

My point was that no President really
does any negotiation whatsoever.

Her husband signing the NAFTA bill is
only one example. Had some other man
sit in the office of President, they would
have sign the same bill into law without
reading it, and without "negotiation."
(Ross Perot being the exception).

So then, for Hilary to say that she would
be a "tougher negotiator" is a joke.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The difference between Bernie and Hillary

One is a lying, commie, bloviating, cheating scum-sucking treasonous hater of American freedoms and liberties.

The other is named Bernie and he has his issues, and while I don't agree with him (I kinda like him anyway)

a reply to: beezzer

Yeah, well, I have several friends who are socialists and while I like them, there's no way in heck I would ever vote for any of them to have any power over me.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: beezzer

Yeah, well, I have several friends who are socialists and while I like them, there's no way in heck I would ever vote for any of them to have any power over me.

If Bernie got the White House he'd still have to work within the confines the Constitution. I don't agree with his policies, but I sense he is an honest man.

That I admire..

Then again, I ain't too bright. . . . . .

a reply to: beezzer

A lot of people thought that about Obama, too.

I'm just sayin' ... I don't trust any of them, but the ones who openly espouse ideologies that believe I shouldn't have any right to the fruits of my labors, I trust with power over me the least.

You are at least right that he's honest about it.

The difference between Bernie and Hillary ?

Ones a 90yr old socialist and the others a 70yr old communist.

originally posted by: avgguy
The difference between Bernie and Hillary ?

Ones a 90yr old socialist and the others a 70yr old communist.

Vote for Jeb Bush!

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm just sayin' ... I don't trust any of them, but the ones who openly espouse ideologies that believe I shouldn't have any right to the fruits of my labors, I trust with power over me the least.

You keep making comments like that. That Sanders is wanting to take the hard earned money from small business owners like yourself. That just isn't the case. Unless you happen to be one of the very few who are making obscene profits and also hiding those profits, he isn't after your money.

You made the same comment about his idea for Free College too. I tried then to explain to you that you were incorrect and that his way of paying for it had nothing to do with you or your business. You really need to research what he's about before you knee-jerk these comments.

Once or twice I could understand but it's been pointed out a couple times just by myself and yet you continue with the same incorrect notion that Sanders is all about hurting the middle class business owners when he's not.

originally posted by: beezzer


One is a lying, commie, bloviating, cheating scum-sucking treasonous hater of American freedoms and liberties.

The other is named Bernie ...

Well that can't be true - from the list of contributers posted previously the one named Bernie is supported by al eth commie trade unions from here to kingdom come, whereas the one not named Bernie has the support of many righteous freedom loving organisations that employ millions of americans.......


(bad form to quote myself...but I screwed up my previous post pretty badly.....)

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That was sarcasm right??? I feel almost silly asking but I'm not real familiar with you so I have to ask. You're laying it on pretty heavy in that post so I'm assuming sarcasm but it's not always easy to tell around here.

a reply to: onequestion

I'll vote for Rand, Jeb has got the mental prowess of a cabbage.