A perfect example of why Clinton cannot be trusted.

[Armstead]

What would Clinton do on issues as President? Damned if I know. It basically depends on how close the next election is.She'll say A as a candidate, but B once in a position of authority.

The article below descrobes it as "evolution." But evolution implies forward movement in a direction. But for her it's more like ziggang and zagging. She moves sideways and goes in circles depending on elections and periods of public accountability.

A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade

Her husband brokered and passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 1993. The move irked labor unions, which are key to organizational efforts in Democratic campaigns. As first lady, in 1996, Clinton trumpeted NAFTA as "proving its worth." Two years later, she went to Davos, Switzerland, where she spoke at the World Economic Forum and thanked businesses for lobbying for the agreement. She also criticized them for not making a stronger push to give her husband fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals and limit congressional power to alter those deals....

As Clinton campaigned for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, where upstate manufacturing jobs had been lost, she backed away from strong support for NAFTA. She called it "flawed," adding that it needed to be fixed and noting, "[W]e didn't get everything we should have got out of it."

As a senator, she voted in favor of free trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco and Oman. She also voiced support for deals with Jordan and Peru. But she also voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

When running for president in 2007 and 2008, she spoke strongly against potential agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Her positions on Colombia and South Korea changed, however, when she became secretary of state under President Obama, who ironically ran to Clinton's left in 2008 on trade.

In 2007, for example, Clinton called the South Korea deal "inherently unfair." Yet, four years later in Seoul, South Korea, as secretary of state, she said getting a South Korea deal done was a "priority for me, for President Obama and for the entire administration. We are determined to get it done, and I believe we will."

In April 2008, before the Pennsylvania primary, where she was trying to woo white working-class men, she said of a Colombia deal that she "will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement."

But again, as secretary of state, she changed her tune.

"We think it's strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States," Clinton said two years later. "And I return very invigorated ... to begin a very intensive effort to try to obtain the votes to get the free trade agreement finally ratified.

[djean111]

1. Only a fool would trust her.

That is pretty much the bottom line, except maybe that it would always be best to assume she will come down on the side of corporations and big money.

[Armstead]

2. The People before an election. Corporations once in office.

[djean111]

3. Precise and accurate.

And a sure bet.

[tk2kewl]

16. Serpentine! Serpentine!

[ibegurpard]

4. precisely

And it has nothing to do with her emails or the vast right wing conspiracy.

[Gwhittey]

5. OH yea well I counter you perfect example

With my perfect example

Back when she was The First Lady she was against a bill that made student loan debt immune to bankruptcy. Then as she was running for Senate she got money Banks that provide a large number of student loans. And then while she was a Senator she voted on a bill that did the same thing she was against. Money influenced her and she screwed over college students who are poor and fill bankruptcy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/

If that does not bother you then you really need to examine how good your life is that you do not carry that Clinton can be bought by the highest bidder. Who is to say some one like Trump does not give Bill Clinton a few million dollars and then Hillary bans all Muslims she has a proven track record of being influenced by "donations" to her family

[Armstead]

8. It is a pattern.

[upaloopa]

6. How bad is it for Bernie Sanders?

How bad is it for Bernie Sanders? A new survey in Wisconsin released today by the highly respected Marquette Law poll gave the Vermont senator a solid lead, 49 percent, to 44 percent for Hillary Clinton -- which is terrible news for Sanders if he hopes to capture the nomination. That’s because he would need to win by a much larger margin in Wisconsin -- Nate Silver estimates a 16-percentage-point landslide -- to get on pace to finish with more pledged delegates than Clinton.


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-30/no-the-democratic-race-isn-t-close

[Armstead]

7. "I won $10 in the lottery." ...."That sucks. you should have won $20."

[upaloopa]

12. Well if you needed $20 and you won $10 then yea that sucks

[Armstead]

14. There's still time to use that $10 to buy more tickets and possibly win $20...or $100

[upaloopa]

15. Not if they don't pay out $100

[merrily]

20. The topic went from Hillary's many evolutions to how Bernie can't win?

[eggman67]

26. Funny how that happens, eh? n/t

[merrily]

29. Thigh slapper.

[Armstead]

32. The only issue for some people, it seems

[ChiciB1]

37. As It ALWAYS Seems To Happen! Funny That... n/t

[islandmkl]

9. hang in there...you might end up being right...

in the meantime try adding a change-up to your pitching arsenal...your fastball is losing speed....

[upaloopa]

11. I'm right

[islandmkl]

18. that's the problem with you 'New Dems'...you are too far right...

[upaloopa]

31. I am 69 yrs old. I voted Dem for the first time in 1968 after I got back from Vietnam in March 1968

I worked that year for Gene McCarthy. I was a part of the Vietnam Vets against the war.

In 1963 I took part in a civil rights march in Yellow Springs Ohio

In 1965 I traveled with a group of friends to Columbus Georgia to meet with AA young people our age to try and understand what life was like in the South.


I have voted Democratic in every election since 1968.


So take your new Dems and stick it you know where

[islandmkl]

33. YEAH...I'll be happy to get in a pissing contest with you any time...

i won't bore you with my credentials since this is the 'net and who knows what may be typed...

I'm near your age and it just shows that age has nothing to do with it...

in fact, your passive rejection of core Democratic Party principles says a lot more about this disagreement than any bullshit about age and bona fides...

[upaloopa]

38. It is a thing with you Bernie folks isn't it. Defining everything and everyone based on your

narcissistic view of yourselves.

I am not impressed with you

[merrily]

39. "New Democrat" is a Democrat who espouses a certain philosophy or political view,

having nothing to do with age or with when someone became a Democrat. E.g., http://www.ndn.org/

Also, one can begin political life with one view and morph over time.

[upaloopa]

40. Well thanks for that. I am not up on my labels.

[baldguy]

10. Richard Mellon Scaife's investment surely paid off.

Evan after 30 yrs, the Clinton haters still try to pigeonhole every issue, every statement, every unrelated incident, into the framework of the false caricature he created.

[Armstead]

13. That is ridiculous. This is about her own shifting public positions contrasted with her actions

[baldguy]

19. This is about confirmation bias from Clinton haters.

The BernieBros and the BoBs are direct descendants of the Arkansas Project and the VRWC.

[Armstead]

23. The Clinton Reality Deniers are the product of wishful thinking

Ohhhh Those Clintons look so nice and say the right things and they're Democrats. That's all we need to know.

[merrily]

21. +1

[islandmkl]

17. Darwin had nothing on Hillary...

[Armstead]

24. Evolution on LSD

[BlueStateLib]

22. Dec 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister signed NAFTA

Dec 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister ... signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

[eggman67]

25. It's also interesting to note

That the emails released by State show her privately lobbying Senators to vote for the Columbia and South Korea deals while publicly opposing them.

CAFTA passed easily so voting against that was an easy face saver. She's never met a FTA she didn't like. Duplicity, thy name is Hillary.

Everyone, including Bernie, recognizes the necessity of trade in a global economy. The difference is that Bernie wants fair trade that benefits American workers and gives them a seat at the table too. Everyone benefits from fair trade.

[DanTex]

27. It's a good thing that she's neither reflexively for or reflexively against FTAs.

While Bernie is an outright protectionist, but Hillary actually examines the pros and cons of each proposal individually. As with many other policy areas, Hillary's approach is more intelligent, and less blindly ideological.

[Armstead]

30. "What do I have to say to voters?"....."What do my Big Corporate Backers want?"

That's what she examines.

[winter is coming]

28. To me, "evolution" should imply a genuine change of mind,

not statements made for transient convenience.

[mariawr]

34. Scorpion and frog story.....writ large nt

[rgbecker]

35. It all makes my head spin and my stomach vomit.

If the designers and promoters of the agreements can't figure out if they are any good or not, how are we expected to understand the implications.

Are we a country or just the wild west, where everything is up for grabs with the spoils going to the ones with the biggest guns and the most friends (or paid shills).

[Armstead]

36. Pirate neo-liberalism aided by bought government

[amborin]

41. she is completely untrustworthy