Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the cheap seats NAFTA was a "BI PARTISAN ACHIEVEMENT" signed into law by G.H.W. BUSH. The only one against it was the 'kook' Ross Perot who was smarter than them all but not as good a liar.
Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
BTW Bush and Clinton are one in the same in my book. They work for their puppet masters not the American people.
Never forget that shillary let four Americans get brutally killed in Benghazi. The whole rotten clinton name is just intertwined with corruption. Billy boy was impeached.
Never forget that shillary let four Americans get brutally killed in Benghazi. The whole rotten clinton name is just intertwined with corruption. Billy boy was impeached.
In that case, I suppose you meant to say "Killary"...
Who cares? We use an electoral college to elect our president. As Bush proved, the popular vote does not matter. There's no chance Trump will win New York State.
Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."
BTW Bush and Clinton are one in the same in my book. They work for their puppet masters not the American people.
Clinton broke ranks with many dems and said he "would not call to renegotiate the bill and will sign it as it stands" and signed it into law in Dec 93.
Theoretically Clinton signed it into law which was basically a formality sealing a completely bipartisan deal with majority republican support...mostly why Perot chose to run in the first place, as the one voice against NAFTA.
To me, Bush, Clinton and Trump are one in the same. Rich, out of touch corporatists. All three adept at screwing the little/middle guy.
Or your candidate just flat out lost those polls. Could be a lot of good reasons.
You asked, "Why weren't hillarys supporters spamming for her?" "Spamming" being the operative word. My reply relates, specifically, to "spamming"...voting more than once. Such poll results would not be scientific or otherwise have any meaning.
Also, I don't have a candidate in this presidential election....I don't drink anyone's Kool-Aid.
I am, however, voting for Anna Throne-Host for NY01's Congressional District, with the expectation she'll remember who her constituents are; unlike the guy we have now....who's a roadie for the Trump tour.
Clinton broke ranks with many dems and said he "would not call to renegotiate the bill and will sign it as it stands" and signed it into law in Dec 93.
Theoretically Clinton signed it into law which was basically a formality sealing a completely bipartisan deal with majority republican support...mostly why Perot chose to run in the first place, as the one voice against NAFTA.
To me, Bush, Clinton and Trump are one in the same. Rich, out of touch corporatists. All three adept at screwing the little/middle guy.
You asked, "Why weren't hillarys supporters spamming for her?" "Spamming" being the operative word. My reply relates, specifically, to "spamming"...voting more than once. Such poll results would not be scientific or otherwise have any meaning.
Also, I don't have a candidate in this presidential election....I don't drink anyone's Kool-Aid.
I am, however, voting for Anna Throne-Host for NY01's Congressional District, with the expectation she'll remember who her constituents are; unlike the guy we have now....who's a roadie for the Trump tour.
Hillary can't get 100 people to show up to her rallies! Trump had 22,000 last night!
Trump is a social media candidate....that is why he outlasted Jeb, Cruz, etc. Hillary is legacy old line media candidate...or Obama 2.0...or is it Bush 3.0?
Lets face it. If it was Jeb verses Hillary...Hillary would crush Jeb. No one cares to watch those two debate the same rhetoric garbage
Trump is a social media candidate....that is why he outlasted Jeb, Cruz, etc. Hillary is legacy old line media candidate...or Obama 2.0...or is it Bush 3.0?
Lets face it. If it was Jeb verses Hillary...Hillary would crush Jeb. No one cares to watch those two debate the same rhetoric garbage
I totally disagree. I think Romney or Jeb would both beat HRC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
