Hilarious TRUMP Lovers

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]REMEMBER WHEN CLINTON PROMISED TO PUT COAL MINERS OUT OF WORK[/h]Clinton’s Vowed To “Put A Lot Of Coal Miners And Coal Companies Out Of Business” In March, Drawing The Ire Of Coal State Democrats:
Clinton’s Town Hall Remarks “Caught The Attention Of Coal Country.” “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton caught the attention of coal country for her statement during a CNN town hall last Sunday when she said, ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.’” (Hoppy Kercheval, “Clinton’s Kinnsley Gaffe,” West Virginia MetroNews, 3/17/16)
The Roanoke [Virginia] Times Editorial: “Clinton May Be The First Candidate To Brag She’s Going To Put An Entire Industry Out Of Work.” “Clinton may be the first candidate to brag she’s going to put an entire industry out of work.” (Editorial, “Our View: Clinton’s Coal Gaffe?,” The Roanoke [Virginia] Times, 3/17/16)
West Virginia Political Commentator Hoppy Kercheval: Clinton’s Comments “Reaffirm What Coal Industry Supporters Fear About Clinton,” That She Will Continue Obama’s Policies That “Make It Impossible To Mine And Burn Coal.” “The comment reaffirmed what coal industry supporters fear about Clinton, that she will continue down the path set forth by the Obama administration of using executive authority to make it impossible to mine and burn coal.” (Hoppy Kercheval, “Clinton’s Kinsley Gaffe,” West Virginia MetroNews, 3/17/16)
The President Of The National Mining Association, Hal Quinn, Said It Was “Deeply Troubling” To Hear Clinton “Boast” That She Wants “To Destroy The Livelihoods Of Tens Of Thousands Of Hard-Working Americans.” “The National Mining Association joined in. Hal Quinn, the group’s president, said it is ‘surpassing strange and deeply troubling to hear prominent presidential candidates boast of their determination in office to destroy the livelihoods of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans.’” (Timothy Cama, “GOP, Industry Backlash After Clinton’s Coal Comments,” The Hill, 3/14/16)
West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin Was “Livid” After Hearing Of Clinton’s “Horrific” Comments, And “Was So Appalled He Was Prepared To Cut Political Ties” With Clinton. “Joe Manchin was livid. The Democratic senator from West Virginia had seen Hillary Clinton tell a televised town hall audience that if she became president, ‘we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,’ in a broader answer about creating jobs in areas hurt by the decline of the coal industry. Coal miners have been struggling in his home state and Mr. Manchin was so appalled he was prepared to cut political ties with the Democratic presidential front-runner. ‘It was horrific,’ he said in an interview Thursday.” (Peter Nicholas, “West Virginia’s Joe Manchin Shaken By Hillary Clinton’s ‘Horrific’ Coal Comment,” The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire, 3/25/16)
Alison Lundergan Grimes, Clinton Friend And Kentucky’s Democrat Secretary Of State, Said She Was “Very Disappointed” In Clinton’s Anti-Coal Comments. “‘I was very disappointed to hear the comments that came out of the debate,’ said Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s secretary of state and a close friend of the Clinton family who received their endorsement during her unsuccessful challenge to [Senator Mitch] McConnell in 2014. ‘My hope is she’ll have a chance to clarify those comments, comments that as I said were completely out of line with personal conversations that I have had with her.’” (Adam Beam and Jonathan Mattise, “Facing Backlash, Clinton Says Coal Still Has A Future,” The Associated Press¸ 3/14/16)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]CLINTON SUPPORTS RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT WILL COST JOBS[/h]Clinton Has Vowed To “Defend And Build On” The Obama Administration’s Anti-Coal Regulations, Which Has Earned Her Support From Environmentalists But Led To Concerns From Labor Unions. “Clinton was quick last week to praise President Obama’s stricter rules on coal-fired power plants, vowing to both defend and build on them. Her stance won plaudits from environmentalists within her party, but unions, a key constituency, are concerned she has yet to say how tougher climate rules will affect coal industry jobs.” (Valerie Volcovici and Amanda Becker, “Clinton Strays From Her Roots As Coal Miner’s Great Granddaughter,” Reuters, 8/10/15)
Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chair, John Podesta, Was The “Architect” Of The Obama Administration’s Carbon Regulations. “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was the architect of Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy, a set of E.P.A. regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Mrs. Clinton’s new plan appears explicitly designed to build on that plan.” (Trip Gabriel and Coral Davenport, “Hillary Clinton Lays Out Climate Change Plan,” The New York Times¸7/27/15)
In August 2015, Obama Finalized New EPA Regulations That Mandate “Tougher Greenhouse Gas Cuts On American Power Plants.” “Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.” (Josh Lederman, “Climate Change: Obama Orders Steeper Cuts From Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

• Obama’s EPA Initially Proposed The Regulations In 2014, Which Take Aim At The Country’s Coal-Fired Power Plants By Drastically Cutting Carbon Emissions. “The Obama administration on Monday announced one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change, a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants.” (Coral Davenport, “Unveiling New Carbon Plan, E.P.A. Focuses On Flexibility,” The New York Times, 6/2/14)

The Final EPA “Clean Power Plan” Rule “Requires A 32 Percent Cut In Power-Plant Carbon-Dioxide Emissions By 2030 From 2005 Levels.” “The limits on carbon emissions are a central component of the U.S.’s pledge to its international partners to cut greenhouse gases by a range of 26% to 28% by 2025, from 2005 levels. The final Environmental Protection Agency rule requires a 32% cut in power-plant carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels, which is a more ambitious target than the draft rules proposed last year.” (Colleen McCain Nelson And Amy Harder, “Obama Announces Rule To Cut Carbon Emissions From Power Plants,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/3/15)
The Final EPA Rule, Running More Than 1500 Pages, Explicitly Says That States Can Use Tax Increases “As A Tool For Meeting Their Emissions-Cutting Requirements.”“In a change from the draft plan, the final EPA rule now explicitly says states can use ‘fees’ (i.e., taxes) as a tool for meeting their emissions-cutting requirements. That’s on page 899 of the massive 1,560-page rule. Plans that states craft to comply with the mandate, the rule states, ‘could accommodate imposition by a state of a fee for CO2 emissions from affected [electric generating units], an approach suggested by a number of commenters.’ That language is a rather brief blessing but enough to excite the ad-hoc, Left-Right mix of environmentalists, economists, and a few conservative carbon-tax advocates who have long been swimming upstream at the national and state level.”(Ben Geman, “Obama Climate Plan Revives Talk Of A Carbon Tax,” National Journal, 8/3/15)
Obama’s Plan To Crack Down On Emissions Is “Unprecedented” And “Controversial.” “In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama’s successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

• Obama’s Regulations Are Intended To “Wean” The Country Off Coal Produced Energy. “Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a ‘bridge fuel’ whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation’s power mix at current levels.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

In June 2014, Clinton Praised The Obama Administration’s EPA Rules On Coal-Fired Power Plants And Described The New Rules As “A Very Creative AmericanSolution.” CLINTON: “So part of what President Obama is doing, and I fully support it, is making it clear that the United States is going to act. We’ve done work on mileage, now with the EPA rules on coal-fired plants, and a very creative American solution, having different states figure out what they can do to try to lower their coal-fired emissions. But then the Supreme Court just agreed that the government has the authority to regulate carbon.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen, CO, 6/30/14)
Clinton Commended Obama For His Actions On Climate Change, Including New EPA Regulations To Limit Carbon Emissions From Coal-Fired Power Plants. “On climate change, Clinton commended President Obama for some recent actions, including new federal regulations limiting carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. ‘We’re moving,’ Clinton said, ‘but we need to do so much more.’” (Philip Rucker, “Hillary Clinton Tries To Strike The Right Tone On Wealth And Income Inequality,” The Washington Post, 6/30/14)

• But Clinton Also Said She Believed America Needed To Go Further Than Obama’s Actions: “So We Are Moving But We Need To Do So Much More.” CLINTON: “So we are moving but we need to do so much more. But the United States cannot go to an international forum unless we’ve done more. And I think what President Obama is now doing is laying down here is what the United States of America is going to do, what are you going to do and being able to bring people around the table by 2015 so maybe we can stem off what will be a terrible, terrible outcome for our world.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen, CO, 6/30/14)

Clinton’s “Support Of Obama’s Climate Agenda” Will Be A Liability For Her 2016 Campaign. “If Clinton runs in 2016, her support of Obama’s climate agenda, and push for more policies, would likely put her in the crosshairs of Republicans who call the president’s emissions standards a ‘war on coal’ and energy jobs.” (Laura Barron-Lopez, “Clinton: US Must Do More On Climate,” The Hill, 7/1/14)
Clinton Was “Really Proud” Of Obama For The 2014 EPA Regulations:
In June 2014, Clinton Said She Was “Really Proud Of President Obama For These New EPA Regulations.” CLINTON: “I am really proud of President Obama for these new EPA regulations and for the strong stance he has taken on climate change at home.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Chicago Ideas Week, Chicago, IL, 6/11/14)
In June 2014, Clinton Said President Obama’s Use Of Executive Authority To Heavily Regulate Coal-Fired Power Plants Was “A Good Start” In Dealing With One Source Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CLINTON: “So here I think that we have to do what the President – President Obama is doing now. Within his executive authority, he has to take steps, as he recently did on the regulations for coal-fired plants. Recognizing that states are at different stages of development so that if you’re starting at a low base where you haven’t done very much to clean up the air, to deal with old plants, to come in with an alternative suite of energy products, then you’ve got to do more – but you’re given more time to do than if you’re a state like California or Massachusetts that have been real leaders – then your burden is different. So I think that if you look at the plan, it is a good start in dealing with one continuing source of greenhouse gas emissions.” (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The BIO International Conference, 6/25/14)
Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” Regulations, Finalized In 2015, Will Raise Energy Costs And Kill Jobs:
Based On EPA Data, The American Action Forum Estimated The Obama Administration’s Finalized Regulations On Carbon Emissions Would Close 66 Power Plants, Eliminate 125,800 Coal Jobs, And Cut The Coal Industry In Half. “The final rule for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was released by the Obama Administration this past August and is a direct attack on the coal industry. According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, the final plan, supported by Sec. Clinton, will shutter 66 power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. All of these figures are based on EPA data. The same study shows that using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48 percent.” (Kimberly VanWhye, “’Revitalizing Coal Communities’: A $30 Billion Consolation Prize”, American Action Forum, 11/13/15)
An Analysis By NERA Economic Consulting Projected That Obama’s Carbon Regulations Will Cost As Much As $292 Billion. “NERA Economic Consulting has produced an analysis of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) recently finalized by the Obama Administration, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants by 32 percent nationwide. NERA’s calculates the CPP could add $29 billion to $39 billion in costs to utilities or as much as $292 billion in added costs between 2022 and 2033, exclusive of added transmission, distribution and natural gas infrastructure costs.” (H. Sterling Burnett, “Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits,” The Heartland Institute, 12/2/15)
The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Estimates That The New Carbon Regulations Will Cause Annual Real Disposable Income To Decline More Than $200 Per Year, Totaling A Loss Of $3,400 By 2030. “Slower economic growth, job losses, and higher energy costs mean that annual real disposable household income will decline on an average of more than $200, with a peak loss of $367 in 2025. In fact, the typical household could lose a total of $3,400 in real disposable income during the modeled 2014-30 timeframe.” (“Assessing The Impact Of Potential New Carbon Regulations In The United States,” Institute For 21st Century Energy, 5/28/14)
As A Result Of These Regulations, The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Estimates That From 2014 To 2030, On Average, The U.S. Economy Will Have 224,000 Fewer Jobs With A Peak Decline In Employment Of 442,000 Jobs. “On average, from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will have 224,000 fewer jobs (Table ES-3), with a peak decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022 (Figure ES-1). These job losses represent lost opportunities and income for hundreds of thousands of people that can never be recovered.” (“Assessing The Impact Of Potential New Carbon Regulations In The United States,” Institute For 21st Century Energy, 5/28/14)
“The Obama Administration Estimated The Emissions Limits Will Cost $8.4 Billion Annually By 2030.” (Josh Lederman, “Obama Orders Steeper Greenhouse Gas Cuts From U.S. Power Plants,” The Associated Press, 8/2/15)

• Industry Experts Say That The Regulations “Will Require Billions Of Dollars In New Investments.” “Industry experts say cutting carbon emissions 32% by 2030 will require billions of dollars in investments for new transmission lines that accommodate more solar and wind power and new pipelines to feed natural-gas-fired power plants, as coal becomes less important as a fuel.” (Amy Harder, Colleen McCain Nelson and Rebecca Smith, “Obama’s New Climate-Change Regulations To Alter, Challenge Industry,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/15)

The Obama Administration Claims The Plan Will Lower Energy Costs, But It Does So By Assuming People Will Simply Use Less Energy, An Assumption Challenged By Energy Providers. “Although the administration predicts the plan will actually lower the average U.S. energy bill by almost $85 in 2030, companies that produce and distribute electricity aren’t buying it. The savings come largely from increased use of wind, power and hydro plants, which operate at a cost of close to zero after they’re installed but cost a lot to get up and running. The administration is also counting on people’s power bills going because they’ll simply use less power as a result of efficiency measures. The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the National Mining Association, the American Energy Alliance and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association all predicted the rule would drive electricity bills up.” (“Winners And Losers Under Obama’s Stricter Power Plant Limits,” The Associated Press, 8/3/15)
Energy Executives Worry That The New Rules Will “Result In Shutting Power Plants” Leading To Higher Costs For Consumers. “Executives worry about the EPA plan’s cost, in part because it could result in shutting power plants that aren’t yet paid off, Mr. Akins said, meaning consumers will have to pay for assets that aren’t providing benefits. Other executives said consumers may be able to trim their electricity use and keep their bills flat—or even reduce them.” (Amy Harder, Colleen McCain, and Rebecca Smith, “Obama’s New Climate-Change Regulations To Alter, Challenge Industry,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/15)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]CLINTON HAS SUPPORTED JOB-KILLING TRADE DEALS LIKE NAFTA AND TPP[/h]CLINTON SUPPORTED AND HELPED DRAFT THE JOB-KILLING TPP
Clinton Took A Lead Role In Drafting TPP And Said It “Sets The Gold Standard In Trade Agreements”:
As Secretary Of State, Clinton Took “A Leading Part In Drafting The Trans-Pacific Partnership.” “She's pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China's shadow. She's also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.” (Elizabeth Dwoskin and Indira Laksmanan, "How Hillary Clinton Created A U.S. Business-Promotion Machine," Bloomberg,1/10/13)
Clinton Had Said The Trans-Pacific Partnership “Sets The Gold Standard In Trade Agreements.” CLINTON: “[We] need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.” (Hillary Clinton,Remarks at Techport Australia , 11/15/12)
Last Week Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Said Clinton Would Support TPP As President:
In An Interview On Tuesday, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, “Longtime Best Friend To The Clintons,” Said He “Believes Hillary Clinton Will Support The TPP Trade Deal If Elected President.” “Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, longtime best friend to the Clintons, said Tuesday that he believes Hillary Clinton will support the TPP trade deal if elected president, with some tweaks.” (Annie Karni, “Clinton Friend McAuliffe Says Clinton Will Flip On TPP, Then Walks It Back,” Politico, 7/26/16)
McAuliffe: “Once The Election’s Over, And We Sit Down On Trade” I Expect Clinton Will Support TPP. “‘I worry that if we don’t do TPP, at some point China’s going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this,” he said in an interview after his speech on the main stage at the Democratic National Convention. ‘Once the election’s over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it but going forward we got to build a global economy.’ Pressed on whether Clinton would turn around and support the trade deal she opposed during the heat of the primary fight against Bernie Sanders, McAuliffe said: ‘Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.’” (Annie Karni, “Clinton Friend McAuliffe Says Clinton Will Flip On TPP, Then Walks It Back,” Politico, 7/26/16)
The Following Day, McAuliffe Doubled Down On His Comments That Hillary Clinton Plans To Support TPP Once Elected President. STEPHANIE RUHLE: “Hillary Clinton's decision to join Sanders in opposing the deal has been a key to winning over a lot of his supporters. But on Tuesday one of her oldest friends, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe said she may flip her position and actually support the deal when and if she wins the White House. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, spoke exclusively with Governor McAuliffe less than one hour ago. She joins me now on the phone. Andrea what did you learn?” ANDREA MITCHELL: “Well, he is not backing down. He is saying, though, that Hillary Clinton would make changes to it before going along with it. but since that is the priority of the president, they're going to proceed and try to get TPP on a lame duck session. Right now I am in the Virginia delegation where the vice presidential running mate is about to be coming out. So let me play you a little bit of McAuliffe sound. And if I am distracted, you'll know it's because we are at a live event right here with Tim Kaine. This is what Terry McAuliffe had to say.” GOV. TERRY MCAULIFFE (CLIP): “Let me be very clear she will only go forward if the changes she wants are implemented, that everyone is in agreement, the labor folks are in agreement. She’s not going forward as it is today. So unless the changes are made she’s not for it. President Obama does want this, as you know.” RUHLE: “So for you, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of wiggle room. Terry almost sounds like he's doubling down.” MITCHELL: “It is definitely doubling down and indicating that is the policy.” (MSNBC, 7/27/16)
The Economic Policy Institute Estimates The U.S. Lost More Than 2 Million Jobs To TPP Nations In 2015 Alone:
The Economic Policy Institute Estimates That The U.S. Trade Deficit With The 11 TPP Nations Led To The Elimination Of More Than 2 Million U.S. Jobs In 2015. “The U.S. trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries eliminated 2 million jobs, as shown in Table 2, which reports the number of direct, indirect, and respending jobs lost (aggregated over all industries). The trade deficit between the United States and the 11 other TPP member countries in 2015 directly eliminated 418,900 jobs. In addition to the direct jobs lost, the U.S. trade deficit with the TPP country group eliminated an additional 847,200 indirect jobs in supplier industries, including jobs in manufacturing, commodity, and service industries. Finally, wages lost because of direct and indirect job cuts from the trade deficits with the TPP member countries would have supported an additional 759,700 respending jobs. The direct, indirect, and respending jobs displaced by the U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries totals 2,025,800 jobs lost.” (Robert E. Scott and Elizabeth Glass, “Trans-Pacific Partnership, Currency Manipulation, Trade, And Jobs,”Economic Policy Institute, 3/3/16)
The U.S. Already Has “A Large And Growing Trade Deficit” With The 11 Members Of The Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Trade Deal. “The United States already has a large and growing trade deficit with the 11 other countries in the proposed TPP, which reached $265.1 billion in 2014. In contrast, the United States had a small trade surplus with Mexico in 1993, before NAFTA took effect. In other words, outsourcing to the TPP countries is a potentially much greater threat than it was under NAFTA with Mexico.” (Robert E. Scott, “Fast Track To Lost Jobs And Lower Wages,” Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog, 4/13/15)
CLINTON IS A LONG-TIME SUPPORTER OF NAFTA, EVEN TOUTING ITS BENEFITS AS SECRETARY OF STATE
As First Lady, Clinton Strongly Promoted NAFTA, And Viewed It As An Example Of The Economy That Is “Reaping The Benefits, Not The Burdens Of Globalization”:
In Her Book “Living History,” Clinton Praised NAFTA, Calling It An Example Of The Economy “Reaping The Benefits, Not The Burdens Of Globalization.” “Creating a free trade zone in North America- the largest free trade zone in the world- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization.” (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History, 2003, p. 182)
In 1998, Clinton Praised The Passage Of NAFTA, Pledging To Continue Free Trade Advocacy: “It Is Certainly Clear That We Have Not By Any Means Finished The Job That Has Begun.” “At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting ‘a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.’ She added: ‘It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.’” (Kristin Jensen and Mark Drajem, “Clinton Breaks With Husband’s Legacy On Nafta Pact, China Trade,” Bloomberg, 3/30/07)
Clinton Said The Business Community Was Very Effective On Behalf Of NAFTA.SCHWAB: “In the same context, the fast-track trade legislation is very much at the top of the priorities of your husbands administration. What can you say also to the business community here to give the active and effective support for this legislative measure?” CLINTON: “Well, I would probably just echo what I already said, at the risk of being repetitive. There was a very effective business effort in the United States on behalf of NAFTA.” (Hillary Clinton, Interview With Klaus Schwab At The Annual Meeting Of The World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, 2/2/98)
During A 1996 Campaign Stop In Texas, Hillary Clinton Touted NAFTA “Saying It Would Reap Widespread Benefits In The Region.” “Meanwhile, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton stumped in the heavily Democratic lower Rio Grande valley. InBrownsville, she touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.” (“Clinton Campaigns In Texas,” United Press International, 11/1/96)
At A Union Event In 1996, Then First-Lady Clinton Told Workers That “I Think That NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” CLINTON: “Oh I think that, everybody is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth.” (First Lady Hillary Clinton,Remarks At An Event For The Union Of Needle Trades, Industrial, And Textile Employees (UNITE), New York, NY, 3/6/96)
As Secretary Of State, Clinton Touted The Benefits Of NAFTA:
Clinton Said “The North American Market, Of Which Mexico Is Such A Central Part Under NAFTA, Is Going To Remain Strong,” Adding “We’re Going To Continue To Import And Export To And From Mexico.” CLINTON: “But I want to start from the point that here we are in the midst of a global economic crisis, and we need all the growth we can get because that will eventually help every country be able to overcome this recession, since we are so interdependent. I think it’s also important to say that I think that the North American market, of which Mexico is such a central part under NAFTA, is going to remain strong. The fact that goods can be manufactured and assembled in Mexico, cutting down on transportation costs, cutting down on the carbon footprint, which will become an even more important consideration in the years ahead, means that we’re going to continue to import and export to and from Mexico.” (Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The First Diplomacy Briefing Series Meeting, Washington, DC, 12/11/09)
Clinton Added That She Was “Committed” To “Working With Our Mexican Partners, To Increase The Capacity Of The Mexican Economy So That They Can Export Even A Greater Range Of Goods.” CLINTON: “I think we also can do more, working with our Mexican partners, to increase the capacity of the Mexican economy so that they can export even a greater range of goods, because the best answer for Mexico and the best rebuke of the drug traffickers is to increase the economic prosperity of the people of Mexico. And I am committed to doing that and I think that other countries like China can grow. But Mexico will remain a critical partner to us in trade and economic well-being for many, many years to come.” (Secretary Hillary Clinton,Remarks At The First Diplomacy Briefing Series Meeting, Washington, DC, 12/11/09)
In March 2010, Clinton Said “We’ve Worked To Promote Growth And Create Jobs Through… Multilateral Pacts Like NAFTA And CAFTA-DR.” CLINTON: “In our region, prosperity has widened in recent decades. We’ve worked to promote growth and create jobs through sound fiscal policy, bilateral trade agreements, multilateral pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, and institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank.” (Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Pathways to Prosperity Ministerial, San Jose, Costa Rica, 3/4/10)
NAFTA Has Led To The Loss Of 850,000 U.S. Jobs:
The U.S. Trade Deficit With Canada And Mexico Increased Ten-Fold Between 1993 And 2013, Resulting In The Loss Of 850,000 Jobs. “Between 1993 (before NAFTA took effect) and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 billion to $177.2 billion, displacing more than 850,000 U.S. jobs. Growing trade deficits and job displacement, especially between the United States and Mexico, were the result of a surge in outsourcing of production by U.S. and other foreign investors. The rise in outsourcing was fueled, in turn, by a surge in foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico, which increased by more than 150 percent in the post-NAFTA period.” (Robert E. Scott, “Fast Track To Lost Jobs And Lower Wages,”Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog, 4/13/15)
Since NAFTA Took Effect In January 1994, The U.S. Has Lost 4,570,000 Manufacturing Jobs, A 27 Percent Decline. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
In May 2016, The U.S. Had 12,285,000 Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 16,855,000 Manufacturing Jobs In January 1994. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
THE U.S. HAS SEEN JOB LOSSES AND DEPRESSED WAGES DUE TO FREE TRADE
The U.S. Has Lost 5 Million Manufacturing Jobs Since 1997, Most Due To Bad Trade Deals And Rising Trade Deficits:
“More Than 5 Million U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Were Lost Between 1997 And 2014,” Primarily Due To “Growing Trade Deficits With Countries That Have Negotiated Trade And Investment Deals With The United States.” “More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1997 and 2014, and most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.” (Robert E. Scott, “Fast Track To Lost Jobs And Lower Wages,” Economic Policy Institute’s Working Economics Blog, 4/13/15)
In December 2014, There Were 12,294 Million U.S. Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 17,297,000 U.S. Manufacturing Jobs In 1997. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/24/16)
Since Bill Clinton Became President In January 1993, The U.S. Has Lost 4,506,000 Manufacturing Jobs, A 27 Percent Decline. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
In May 2016, The U.S. Had 12,285,000 Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 16,791,000 Manufacturing Jobs In January 1993. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
Since NAFTA Took Effect In January 1994, The U.S. Has Lost 4,570,000 Manufacturing Jobs, A 27 Percent Decline. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
In May 2016, The U.S. Had 12,285,000 Manufacturing Jobs, Down From 16,855,000 Manufacturing Jobs In January 1994. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 6/21/16)
“The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Entered Into Force On January 1, 1994.” (M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian Fergusson, “The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),” Congressional Research Service, 4/16/2015)
Trade With Low-Wage Countries Reduced U.S. Workers’ Wages By $180 Billion In 2011:
Trade Competition With China And Other Low-Wage Countries Results In Reduced Wages For All 100 Million U.S. Workers Without A College Degree. “Worse yet, growing competition with workers in China and other low-wage countries reduced the wages of all 100 million U.S. workers without a college degree, leading to cumulative losses of approximately $180 billion per year.” (Will Kimball and Robert E. Scott, “China Trade, Outsourcing And Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute, 12/11/14)
Trade With Low-Wage Countries Lowered Annual Wages By 5.5 Percent – Roughly $1,800 For Full-Time Workers Without A College Degree. “To put these estimates in macroeconomic terms, in 2011, trade with low-wage countries lowered annual wages by 5.5 percent—roughly $1,800 for all full-time, full-year workers without a college degree. To provide comparable economy-wide impact estimates, assume that 100 million workers without a college degree suffered total losses of $1,800 per year, which yields a total national loss of $180 billion.” (Will Kimball and Robert E. Scott, “China Trade, Outsourcing And Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute, 12/11/14)
Assuming 100 Million U.S. Workers Without A College Degree Results In A Lost Of $180 Billion In Wages In 2011. “To provide comparable economy-wide impact estimates, assume that 100 million workers without a college degree suffered total losses of $1,800 per year, which yields a total national loss of $180 billion.” (Will Kimball and Robert E. Scott, “China Trade, Outsourcing And Jobs,” Economic Policy Institute, 12/11/14)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]CLINTON BROKE HER PROMISE ABOUT CREATING JOBS IN UPSTATE NEW YORK[/h]Clinton Promised To Create 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York When Running For Senate In 2000:
Clinton Promised To Create 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York When She Campaigned For Senator In 2000. “She's reminded of it all the time around here, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn't have been surprised when her failed 2000 campaign promise to bring 200,000 jobs to economically desperate upstate New York became part of the latest presidential debate.” (Carolyn Thompson, “Fact Check: Clinton And Jobs Promised,” USA Today, 2/28/08)
Clinton Ran TV Ads “Just Before The Election” Touting Her 200,000 New Upstate Jobs Goal. “A day after announcing her 2000 candidacy, then-first lady Clinton vowed to infuse more than a half billion dollars into the upstate economy. A television ad ran just before the election, citing the 200,000 new jobs goal.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
The Washington Post Headline: “As Senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.” (The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
Clinton Massively Underperformed This Goal, With Job Growth In Upstate New York Remaining Stagnant And Manufacturing Cratering:
The Public Policy Institute In Albany, Which Uses U.S. BLS Data, Reported That Upstate New York “Lost More Than 31,000 Payroll Jobs Between October 2001 And December 2006.” “The most authoritative jobs numbers are widely considered to be those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple analyses of its New York data show that upstate actually lost jobs during Clinton’s first term. For example, the non-partisan Public Policy Institute in Albany — which uses BLS data for a monthly snapshot of Upstate New York — reported that the region lost more than 31,000 payroll jobs between October 2001 and December 2006.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
“During Her Overall Senate Tenure, According To The Institute, Upstate Jobs Rose 0.2 Percent Overall.” “During her overall Senate tenure, according to the institute, upstate jobs rose 0.2 percent overall, but manufacturing jobs fell 24.1 percent.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
Manufacturing Jobs In Upstate New York Fell By “Nearly 25 Percent During Clinton’s Time In The Senate. “But nearly eight years after Clinton’s Senate exit, there is little evidence that her economic development programs had a substantial impact on upstate employment. Despite Clinton’s efforts, upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
While Failing To Uphold Her Promise To Her Constituents, Clinton Was In India Claiming The Outsourcing Of American Jobs Was "An Inevitability":
In Remarks From A 2005 Closed Door Presentation In India, Clinton Declared That Outsourcing Is "An Inevitability There Is No Way To Legislate Against Reality… Outsourcing Will Continue." CLINTON: "Perhaps some economic incentives to at least think very hard before those decisions are made, but you know it is an inevitability there is no way to legislate against reality, so I think that uh, the outsourcing will continue." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At India Today Conclave, New Delhi, India, 2/25/05)
Clinton Blamed 9-11 And President Bush For Not Reaching Her 200,000 Jobs Goal For Upstate New York:
In April Clinton Was Grilled For Promising 200,000 New Jobs For Upstate New York During Her Time As A New York Senator, Blaming 9-11 And President Bush For Not Reaching Jobs Goal. REPORTER: "Again, you see particularly 'upstaters' recalling your time in the U.S. Senate and also recalling your pledge for the 200,000 jobs, right? And I know I've seen your comments since then, that you were overzealous or exuberant perhaps and your hope was that there would be a Democratic White House, which was not achieved. You're not making such pledges now, but do you think that you could boost job growth in upstate New York if you were in fact in the White House?" CLINTON: "I sure do. You know, three things happened; we had 9/11, which was devastating for the entire state, we did have The Great Recession and Republican policies, and we had a very difficult situation with the Bush administration not enforcing trade agreements." (Hillary Clinton, Interview With Capitol Tonight, 4/4/16)

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]EXPANSION OF TRUMP ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL[/h](New York, NY) August 11, 2016 –Donald J. Trump is pleased to announce an expansion of his economic advisory team that will build off some of the greatest economic thinkers in business today. Mr. Trump continues to expand his economic team to help respond to the terrible economic shape the Obama-Clinton economy has created. The addition of these men and women represents a commitment to adding diverse thoughts to the Trump/Pence campaign. This group will continue to look for innovative ways to jumpstart and revitalize our struggling economy. Further additions will be made as the campaign continues to grow.
The newest additions to our economic team include, Diane Hendricks, Darlene Jordan, Betsy McCaughey, Brooke Rollins, Carla Sands, Anthony Scaramucci, Judy Shelton, Liz Uihlein, and Kathleen Hartnett White.
Mr. Trump is pleased to add these incredible individuals from across the economic spectrum to help get the American economy back on track.
Mr. Trump said of the new additions, “We are continuing to work every day to bring in the best and brightest minds to save our country’s economy. These new members of our team are some of the best economic minds around right now, and they will continue to bring new ideas to our campaign that will strengthen and grow our economy. We can finally Make America Great Again and ensure all Americans have a chance to succeed at the American Dream.”

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]STATEMENT FROM TRUMP CAMPAIGN ON CLINTON’S FAILED ECONOMIC AGENDA[/h]"Right now the American economy is only working for the rigged system in Washington and on Wall Street, yet Hillary Clinton is running to keep things as they are. Clinton’s plans today will short circuit our economy by raising taxes, increasing spending and killing jobs. Donald Trump presents a better vision and a new direction – a plan to unleash prosperity, create jobs and increase wages so that all Americans can succeed." - Dan Kowalski, Deputy National Policy Director

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]WHAT TO WATCH FOR DURING CLINTON’S ECONOMIC SPEECH ON THURSDAY[/h]Today Donald J. Trump for President released a document outlining what to watch for during Hillary Clinton’s economic speech in Michigan. This document outlines Clinton’s top vulnerabilities on the economy and jobs and shows why voters and journalists alike should not take what Clinton says at face value.
The document can be found here.

 

[superbeets]

[h=6]- AUGUST 11, 2016 -[/h][h=1]ICYMI: CLINTON’S BROKEN PROMISE TO NEW YORKERS IS A PREVIEW FOR ALL AMERICANS[/h]

Clinton’s 2000 Promise To Create 200,000 New Jobs In Upstate New York Was An Unequivocal Failure, With Jobs Remaining Stagnant And Manufacturing Cratering​

Clinton Promised To Create 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York When Running For Senate In 2000:
Clinton Promised To Create 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York When She Campaigned For Senator In 2000. “She's reminded of it all the time around here, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn't have been surprised when her failed 2000 campaign promise to bring 200,000 jobs to economically desperate upstate New York became part of the latest presidential debate.” (Carolyn Thompson, “Fact Check: Clinton And Jobs Promised,” USA Today, 2/28/08)
Clinton Ran TV Ads “Just Before The Election” Touting Her 200,000 New Upstate Jobs Goal. “A day after announcing her 2000 candidacy, then-first lady Clinton vowed to infuse more than a half billion dollars into the upstate economy. A television ad ran just before the election, citing the 200,000 new jobs goal.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
The Washington Post Headline: “As Senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.” (The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
Clinton Massively Underperformed This Goal, With Job Growth In Upstate New York Remaining Stagnant And Manufacturing Cratering:
The Public Policy Institute In Albany, Which Uses U.S. BLS Data, Reported That Upstate New York “Lost More Than 31,000 Payroll Jobs Between October 2001 And December 2006.” “The most authoritative jobs numbers are widely considered to be those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple analyses of its New York data show that upstate actually lost jobs during Clinton’s first term. For example, the non-partisan Public Policy Institute in Albany — which uses BLS data for a monthly snapshot of Upstate New York — reported that the region lost more than 31,000 payroll jobs between October 2001 and December 2006.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
Manufacturing Jobs In Upstate New York Fell By “Nearly 25 Percent During Clinton’s Time In The Senate. “But nearly eight years after Clinton’s Senate exit, there is little evidence that her economic development programs had a substantial impact on upstate employment. Despite Clinton’s efforts, upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.” (Jerry Markon, “As senator, Clinton Promised 200,000 Jobs In Upstate New York. Her Efforts Fell Flat.,” The Washington Post, 8/7/16)
While Failing To Uphold Her Promise To Her Constituents, Clinton Was In India Claiming The Outsourcing Of American Jobs Was "An Inevitability":
In Remarks From A 2005 Closed Door Presentation In India, Clinton Declared That Outsourcing Is "An Inevitability There Is No Way To Legislate Against Reality… Outsourcing Will Continue." CLINTON: "Perhaps some economic incentives to at least think very hard before those decisions are made, but you know it is an inevitability there is no way to legislate against reality, so I think that uh, the outsourcing will continue." (Hillary Clinton, Remarks At India Today Conclave, New Delhi, India, 2/25/05)
Clinton Blamed 9-11 And President Bush For Not Reaching Her 200,000 Jobs Goal For Upstate New York:
In April Clinton Was Grilled For Promising 200,000 New Jobs For Upstate New York During Her Time As A New York Senator, Blaming 9-11 And President Bush For Not Reaching Jobs Goal. REPORTER: "Again, you see particularly 'upstaters' recalling your time in the U.S. Senate and also recalling your pledge for the 200,000 jobs, right? And I know I've seen your comments since then, that you were overzealous or exuberant perhaps and your hope was that there would be a Democratic White House, which was not achieved. You're not making such pledges now, but do you think that you could boost job growth in upstate New York if you were in fact in the White House?" CLINTON: "I sure do. You know, three things happened; we had 9/11, which was devastating for the entire state, we did have The Great Recession and Republican policies, and we had a very difficult situation with the Bush administration not enforcing trade agreements." (Hillary Clinton, Interview With Capitol Tonight, 4/4/16)

 

[vidswaps]

 

[Dafinch]

Ahhhhhhhh, I SEE, said the Blind Man. Yup, those titties look real to me, lol...

 

[The Guesser]

Donald Trump's decision to mock disabled reporter bothered people the most out of controversies, poll reveals

Bloomberg poll asks likely voters in 2016 US presidential election to rank controversial actions highlighted by political opponents

• Heather Saul
• @heatheranne9
• 2 comments
  
  Donald Trump's attack on the president followed outrage after he appeared to suggest Hillary Clinton should be shot GettyThere is an extensive list of acts and comments from Donald Trump that have made his campaign as controversial as it is today.

The billionaire magnate has remained at the top of headlines by provoking outrage with incendiary comments about his detractors and rivals.
One of his most recent remarks attracted the attention of the US Secret Service when he suggested “second amendment people” could do something to stop Hillary Clinton from abolishing the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms.
On Wednesday, Mr Trump’s escalatory rhetoric continued with him branding President Barack Obama “the founder of Isis”, a claim he also reserved for Ms Clinton four days before.
People who will flee America if Donald Trump wins


His comments often appear to bolster his campaign and he now stands as the Republican presidential nominee. But some of his actions have proved more jarring than others among the US electorate. A poll by Bloomberg which asked which of the actions highlighted by his political opponents likely voters were most bothered by found his impression of Serge Kovaleski, a reporter with the congenital condition arthrogryposis who he singled out at a rally in South Carolina, to be at the top of the list.
The poll asked 1,0007 adults over the age of 18 to rate nine things he has been criticised for by Democrats in terms of how little and how much each one bothered them. They included his mocking of Kovaleski, his comments about the parents of a fallen Muslimsolider, his follow-up comments about the sacrifices he had made by working in business, and his decision not to release his tax returns.

Respondents said they were “most bothered” about Mr Trump's impression of Kovaleski, where he made jittery movements with his hand and slurred his speech. Mr Trump defended his actions by claiming he was simply mimicking a “grovelling” reporter and had no idea about what he looked like. After that, his remarks about the parents of the slain soldier killed in Iraq was the action people were the second most offended by.

 

[vidswaps]

Let me introduce to you all Mr Flip-Flop,Lying Scum,Alzheimer Foul Mouth Benedict Donald!!!

.

kth)(&^Slapping-silly90))azzkick(&^:missingte:bigfinger

 

[superbeets]

Scathing House Intel Report on ISIS Fuels Trump’s Attack

A new report showing the Pentagon exaggerated its battlefield successes gives the GOP nominee fresh ammunition in the political fight over the terror group's rise.

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[Dafinch]

Time's magazine cover is killer...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...s-worth-a-thousand-words-trumps-time-disaster


Meltdown! When One Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words. Trump's TIME Disaster

By stuhunter3
Thursday Aug 11, 2016 · 7:16 AM PDT

This TIME cover says it all….
When Donald Trump mucks things up, the first person to let him know is usually Republican Party boss Reince Priebus. Almost every day, Trump picks up his cell phone to find Priebus on the line, urging himto quash some feud or clarify an incendiary remark. The Wisconsin lawyer has been a dutiful sherpa to the Manhattan developer, guiding him through the dizzying altitude of the presidential race and lobbying the GOP to unite behind a figure who threatens its future.
But every bond has its breaking point. For this partnership, the moment nearly arrived in early August. Priebus was on vacation when he learned that Trump had declined to endorse Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and a close friend. The chairman had a frank message for the nominee, according to two Republican officials briefed on the call. Priebus told Trump that internal GOP polling suggested he was on track to lose the election. And if Trump didn’t turn around his campaign over the coming weeks, the Republican National Committee would consider redirecting party resources and machinery to House and Senate races.
time.com/...
How’s this working out? “Obama is the founder of ISIS”?
Then there are the challenges entirely of Trump’s own making. More than three months after he effectively clinched the Republican nomination, he has yet to settle on a strategy to match the demands of a broader electorate. In an interview with TIME on Aug. 9, the improvisational candidate sounded torn between conflicting pieces of advice, unsure of how much to hold back and when to let loose. “I am now listening to people that are telling me to be easier, nicer, be softer. And you know, that’s O.K., and I’m doing that,” he says. “Personally, I don’t know if that’s what the country wants.”


to quash some feud or clarify an incendiary remark. The Wisconsin lawyer has been a dutiful sherpa to the Manhattan developer, guiding him through the dizzying altitude of the presidential race and lobbying the GOP to unite behind a figure who threatens its future.
But every bond has its breaking point. For this partnership, the moment nearly arrived in early August. Priebus was on vacation when he learned that Trump had declined to endorse Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and a close friend. The chairman had a frank message for the nominee, according to two Republican officials briefed on the call. Priebus told Trump that internal GOP polling suggested he was on track to lose the election. And if Trump didn’t turn around his campaign over the coming weeks, the Republican National Committee would consider redirecting party resources and machinery to House and Senate races.
time.com/...
How’s this working out? “Obama is the founder of ISIS”?
Then there are the challenges entirely of Trump’s own making. More than three months after he effectively clinched the Republican nomination, he has yet to settle on a strategy to match the demands of a broader electorate. In an interview with TIME on Aug. 9, the improvisational candidate sounded torn between conflicting pieces of advice, unsure of how much to hold back and when to let loose. “I am now listening to people that are telling me to be easier, nicer, be softer. And you know, that’s O.K., and I’m doing that,” he says. “Personally, I don’t know if that’s what the country wants.”

 

[The Guesser]

NYT columnist: Trump's children 'should be ashamed of him'


By Harper Neidig

Getty Images​

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says Donald Trump's children "should be ashamed of him" after the Republican presidential nominee suggested “Second Amendment people” could stop Democratic Hillary Clinton from nominating liberal judges as president.
“People are playing with fire here, and there is no bigger flamethrower than Donald Trump,” Friedman wrote in an op-ed published Wednesday. “Forget politics; he is a disgusting human being. His children should be ashamed of him.“I only pray that he is not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states so that the message goes out across the land — unambiguously, loud and clear: The likes of you should never come this way again.”
During a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday, Trump was discussing the possibility that Clinton would nominate judges who could hinder gun rights when he made a remark that critics are saying was a call to violence.
“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he said. “Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.”
Trump and his campaign later said that the Republican nominee was calling on gun owners to use their political power.
Friedman said that the remarks reminded him of the rhetoric that led to the 1995 assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
“His right-wing opponents just kept delegitimizing him as a ‘traitor’ and ‘a Nazi’ for wanting to make peace with the Palestinians and give back part of the Land of Israel,” Friedman wrote. “Of course, all is fair in politics, right? And they had God on their side, right? They weren’t actually telling anyone to assassinate Rabin. That would be horrible.”