Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Occupy Underground
Related: About this forumDoes Being Wrong On The Panama Trade Deal Disqualify You?
Anyone who voted to help tax evaders, corrupt politicians, and drug king pins by using Panama banks, and firms to launder their money is not qualified to be president in my opinion.
A lot of people spoke out about this deal with this wild wild west banana republic, and voted no.
It was plain to see anyone voting yes, or supporting this deal, supports our completely corrupt world economy where the 1% get everything, and can bribe, and steal all they want without leaving a trail.
Does supporting this deal disqualify someone from being president?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 2349 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does Being Wrong On The Panama Trade Deal Disqualify You? (Original Post)
scottie55
Apr 2016
OP
Officially? No. Rhetorically? It's depends on whether you agree with Bernie's point of view.
The_Casual_Observer
Apr 2016
#2
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)1. "Being wrong." Who gets to decide that?
rhetorical question....
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)2. Officially? No. Rhetorically? It's depends on whether you agree with Bernie's point of view.
PatV
(71 posts)3. By all means.
Sanders ardently opposed the trade deal that led to Panama Papers abuses; Clinton supported it
Bernie spoke out against tax havens & Panama Free Trade Agreement 5 years ago. Hillary was on the side of the rich
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama both supported the Bush administration-negotiated agreement, which ultimately made tax evasion an even larger problem. Progressive NGOs and watchdogs warned that this would happen at the time, but Clinton and Obama ignored them and strongly pushed for the deal.
Sanders, on the other hand, was one of the few voices to challenge the neoliberal trade deal.
Sanders began his statement on the Senate floor noting that Panamas economy is incredibly small, with an economic output of just 0.2 percent of the U.S. economys. (Panama as a country, in fact, did not exist until the beginning of the 20th century, when the U.S. carved it off of Colombia and built an important canal there.)
So I think no one is going to legitimately stand up here and say that trading with such a small country is going to significantly increase American jobs, he explained.
Edit:http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/sanders_ardently_opposed_the_trade_deal_that_helped_make_the_panama_papers_scandal_clinton_supported_it/
The puts everything in a nutshell. All these trade agreements are bull. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have never seen one they didn't have to put into effect.
Bernie spoke out against tax havens & Panama Free Trade Agreement 5 years ago. Hillary was on the side of the rich
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama both supported the Bush administration-negotiated agreement, which ultimately made tax evasion an even larger problem. Progressive NGOs and watchdogs warned that this would happen at the time, but Clinton and Obama ignored them and strongly pushed for the deal.
Sanders, on the other hand, was one of the few voices to challenge the neoliberal trade deal.
Sanders began his statement on the Senate floor noting that Panamas economy is incredibly small, with an economic output of just 0.2 percent of the U.S. economys. (Panama as a country, in fact, did not exist until the beginning of the 20th century, when the U.S. carved it off of Colombia and built an important canal there.)
So I think no one is going to legitimately stand up here and say that trading with such a small country is going to significantly increase American jobs, he explained.
Edit:http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/sanders_ardently_opposed_the_trade_deal_that_helped_make_the_panama_papers_scandal_clinton_supported_it/
The puts everything in a nutshell. All these trade agreements are bull. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have never seen one they didn't have to put into effect.