Удары по Сирии
С одной стороны, я вполне одобряю куда более активное противодействие Путину/Асаду, чем до сих пор. И, как я писал, вернее, цитировал вчера, позиция "против войны" в данном случае не имеет смысла, так как война идет уже который год, и на данный момент количество жертв около полумиллиона в государстве с населением меньше 20 миллионов
( Read more... )
Ваше сообщение не соответствует действительности. Вы либо не смотрели президентских дебатов, либо пропустили их мимо ушей.
Clinton: Well I think the middle class thrives, America thrives. So my plan is based on growing the economy, giving middle class families many more opportunities. I want us to have the biggest jobs program since World War II. Jobs in infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. I think we can compete with high wage countries and I believe we should. New jobs in clean energy. Not only to fight climate change, which is a serious problem but to create new opportunities and new businesses. I want us to do more to help small business, that’s where two-thirds of the new jobs are going to come from. I want to us raise the national minimum wage because people who work full time should not still be in poverty. And I sure do want to make sure women get equal pay for the work we do. I feel strongly that we have to have an education system that starts with preschool and goes through college. That’s why I want more technical education and community colleges, real apprenticeships to prepare young peel for the jobs of the future. I want to make college debt-free and for families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or a university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted. And we're going to work hard to make sure that it is. Because we are going to go where the money is. Most of the gains in the last years since the great recession have gone to the very top. So we are going to have the wealthy pay their fair share. We're going to have corporations make a contribution greater than they are now to our country. That is a plan that has been analyzed by independent experts which said that it could produce 10 million new jobs. By contrast, Donald's plan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose 3.5 million jobs. Why? Because his whole plan is to cut taxes. To give the biggest tax breaks ever to the wealthy and to corporations. Adding $20 trillion to our debt and causing the kind of dislocation that we have seen before. Because it truly will be trickle down economics on steroids. So the plan I have I think will actually produce greater opportunities. The plan he has will cost us jobs and possibly lead to another great recession.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063
Клинтон говорила о проблемах среднего класса c самого начала своей избирательной кампании.
Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again.
For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those at top by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their own rules, it will trickle down, it will trickle down to everyone else. Yet every time they have a chance to try that approach, it explodes the national debt, concentrates wealth even more and does practically nothing to help hard-working Americans.
Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic president has had to come in and clean up the mess left behind.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=111418
Reply
Reply
When Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the original TPP-- now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)-- he put the American agricultural sector at a competitive disadvantage. By depriving U.S. farmers of preferential duty rates throughout the CPTPP territory, The White House unwittingly turned Canadian, Australian and Mexican growers into winners and U.S. farmers into losers . This trade scenario will begin to play out at the end of this year, when the CPTPP goes into effect.
Withdrawing from the TPP was damaging to the American agricultural sector , but the further piling on of Chinese retaliatory tariffs has now brought things to a tipping point. In a startling reversal of thinking, Trump has tasked the USTR’s Robert Lighthizer with looking into the prospects of the U.S. re-joining the TPP.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexcapri/2018/04/15/trumps-trade-war-irony-america-loses-by-not-rejoining-the-tpp/
Между тем исполняется предсказание Клинтон о том, что республиканцы не умеют делать ничего другого, кроме как уменьшать налоги на богатых и увеличивать дефицит бюджета, с которым потом приходится бороться следующему демократическому президенту.
Клинтон предлагала достаточно радикальную и вместе с тем прагматичную программу помощи среднему классу, которая оказалась невостребованной.
Reply
Reply
Ваше утверждение не соответствует действительности.
Во-первых, договор, о котором идет речь, был один - NAFTA. Во-вторых, этот договор был заключен и подписан Бушем старшим.
Билл Клинтон подписал закон об осуществлении этого договора, принятый Конгрессом на межпартийной основе, с большинством голосов от республиканцев.
It is true that President Bill Clinton signed the enabling NAFTA legislation in 1993. However, the trade agreement was negotiated and signed by the prior president, George H.W. Bush in 1992. Also, the NAFTA bill could not have reached Clinton’s desk without Republican support in Congress.
The Senate passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 61-38, on Nov. 20, 1993, with 34 Republican votes, and the House passed it three days earlier, 234-200, with 132 Republican votes.
So to call it “Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA” ignores the trade agreement’s history.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-attack-on-clintons-character/
она хуже сумела ее объяснить
В том, что экономическая программа Клинтон не дошла до избирателей, частично виновата она сама. Другая часть вины - на прессе, которая раздувала липовые скандалы вместо обсуждения проблем, важных для благосостояния людей.
Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues. Attempts by the Clinton campaign to define her campaign on competence, experience, and policy positions were drowned out by coverage of alleged improprieties associated with the Clinton Foundation and emails. Coverage of Trump associated with immigration, jobs, and trade was greater than that on his personal scandals.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud
Третья часть вины - на самих избирателях, которые не дали себя труда разобраться в программах кандидатов прежде чем принимать решение, которое может существенно повлиять на их жизнь.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government
Reply
Опять же я не понимаю, в чем виноват избиратель. Если программа до него не дошла или он ее не уловил, то это плохая работа команды Клинтон.
Reply
Reply
Самый лучший кандидат всех времен и народов не донесла самую лучшую программу до избирателя, а виноват жж юзер веревкин :)
У меня есть знакомые, которые настолько обиделись на нее после истории с Берни, что не поехали в Нью Хэмпшир и не ходили там от двери к двери как они делали при Обаме. Может в этом проблема с тем, что ее замечательная программа не дошла до избирателя, а не во мне?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment