View Poll Results: Do you think USA was better off Pre-NAFTA?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 60.00%
  • No

    10 40.00%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Wait a minute, he would have been president then!
    Back then, most Americans weren't demanding free stuff.

    But it was Ross Perot who put Clinton into the White House by running as a third party.

    If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, no way would NAFTA gotten through Congress, no way. Most Democrats opposed NAFTA and there were enough Republicans who also opposed NAFTA. The vast majority of Americans opposed NAFTA back then and those today who aren't stupid oppose NAFTA today.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Back then, most Americans weren't demanding free stuff.

    But it was Ross Perot who put Clinton into the White House by running as a third party.

    If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, no way would NAFTA gotten through Congress, no way. Most Democrats opposed NAFTA and there were enough Republicans who also opposed NAFTA. The vast majority of Americans opposed NAFTA back then and those today who aren't stupid oppose NAFTA today.
    No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

    Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...rade_Agreement


    When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


    With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.
    Last edited by Montecresto; 01-07-14 at 08:44 PM.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

    Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

    North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


    With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.
    In fact negotiations for NAFTA began during the Reagan administration and was signed by Bush and passed with GOP majority. Why would you try to blame NAFTA on the dem's, I mean I know why, but WHY??

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    No, it was Bush that put Clinton in the White House. Had he chose not to run, like Johnson, Ross Perot would have been president. As to NAFTA, no way, that's a bi-partisan deal all the way. But with more GOP support than democratic support. I can't believe you just rewrote history, now don't do that again.

    Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The signed agreement then needed to be authorized by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

    North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    When it did pass our legislative body, here were the numbers:


    With much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.
    The only reason those 102 Democrats went along was because Clinton was POTUS.

    If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, he never would have gotten those Democrat votes.

    I was around back then and active in politics and the RNC.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    The only reason those 102 Democrats went along was because Clinton was POTUS.

    If G.H. Bush were have been reelected, he never would have gotten those Democrat votes.

    I was around back then and active in politics and the RNC.
    Dude! I just showed you that Reagan started NAFTA, Bush signed it and it past legislation with a majority of republicans and your trying to hang it on Clinton. THAT, really sucks.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Dude! I just showed you that Reagan started NAFTA, Bush signed it and it past legislation with a majority of republicans and your trying to hang it on Clinton. THAT, really sucks.
    On December 17, 1992 President George H. W. Bush and others conducted a ceremonial signing, but NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993.

  7. #17
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Sorry I should have voted YES. Obviously we're not better off and the NWO has taken control.

    Guess who gets screwed in a 1 world government?
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I see the New World Order to be a CORPORATE World Order and that is closer to fascism. I do not approve. Let the system crash and we'll all be in the same boat and our struggles will be for our families and what we believe in and screw the NWO.
    Full moon tonight?

  8. #18
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Texmex View Post
    On December 17, 1992 President George H. W. Bush and others conducted a ceremonial signing, but NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993.
    Of course Clinton signed it after Bush, that's beside the point that it was a republican agenda. But it certainly had democrat support. That's why my first post stated it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope your not saying that Bush wouldn't have signed it when he did if it had ALREADY been passed in congress with a GOP majority.

  9. #19
    #NeverTrump
    a351's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Space Coast
    Last Seen
    09-09-17 @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,902

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Anyhow, the answer to the poll is no. What is often conveniently blamed on trade, sinister foreigners and corporate entities is largely a product of technological advances and the natural flow of unskilled jobs to unskilled populaces. A wonderful example of this disconnect is China's loss of approx 25 million manufacturing jobs in the first decade of its implementation, yet most will tell you of America's great suffering at the hands of the Chinese during said period. The efficiency and downward pressure on prices as a result of trade outweighs the short term effects that so many point to as evidence of failure.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 12:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

    Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Expanded NAFTA

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Of course Clinton signed it after Bush, that's beside the point that it was a republican agenda. But it certainly had democrat support. That's why my first post stated it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I hope your not saying that Bush wouldn't have signed it when he did if it had ALREADY been passed in congress with a GOP majority.
    No, just pointing out facts. As far as Bush vs Clinton is concerned, I have found that the republicans and the democrats, in spite of their differences, often agree when it comes to selling out the American people.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •