Next time NAFTA comes up Hillary needs to point out it was negotiated and signed by Poppy Bush.

[yellowcanine]

Yes it was implemented during the Bill Clinton administration but Trump probably doesn't know that it was signed by the first Bush and he might even deny it, scoring debating points for Hillary and possibly throwing him off his game a bit.

[jberryhill]

1. Meh

By its own terms, it required ratification by the respective legislatures.

The US implementation act was cleared by Congress in November 1993 with a non-veto-proof majority. In other words, had Clinton vetoed the implementation act, it would not have survived.

[yellowcanine]

3. Yeah got that. But point is it was bipartisan and some people considering Trump might not know

that. Of course it makes no difference to the hardcore Trump supporters but for independents and Republicans trying to decide it could be helpful, particularly if combined with the point that NAFTA isn't really the reason for loss of jobs in the rust belt. And Hillary should also hit him on the Mexican Ford plant - it is not costing any U.S. jobs. Trade is Trump's strongest argument, imo, and she needs to find ways to more effectively rebut it. She didn't do so well on that in the debate.

[Whiskeytide]

8. The Ford argument is a non-starter...

... It IS costing the U.S. jobs. It might not be LOSING jobs, but if the new plant were built here, US workers would get the jobs it will create. Hillary would look silly arguing otherwise.

[leftynyc]

11. But that's don the con's claim

That it IS losing jobs. That's a lie that must be countered. Give him nothing and confront every single lie - it's the only way.

[Whiskeytide]

12. I disagree. There is little difference conceptually between...

... "losing" jobs and "costing" jobs. There is still a US worker without a job either way. Even if tRump isn't clever enough to counter-punch with that, you can be sure the right wing pundits will.

Hil needs to pick her battles - and focus on the genuine, easily understood winners. He gives us so much fodder, it will still be impossible to counter every crazy, truthless utterance he makes. That's part of his reality show-based strategy. When he makes outrageous statement after outrageous statement, the rebuttals get lost in the next detonation unless they're succinct and deadly.

[leftynyc]

13. Uh - no

There isn't a US worker losing a job here - which is don the con's claim. Another plant tells another story. I don't consider Americans as stupid as you do.

[pampango]

5. Clinton could have vetoed it but it was indeed negotiated and signed by a republican president.

That is worth pointing out at a debate. TPP, OTOH, has been negotiated and signed by Obama with no republican involvement. That is a different story.

[jberryhill]

10. That's too much detail for a debate format

Bottom line - it's a treaty, and Trump's claim that the US can simply breach them at will is nonsense. If he wants to start a trade war, we lose.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Mostly negotiated by Bush admin...

but Bill Clinton signed it.

[yellowcanine]

4. Bush signed the actual treaty in December 1992.

Clinton signed the implementation agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

[awake]

6. "It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1,1994"

"In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

[Cicada]

9. NAFTA followed by explosive job growth throughout North America

Millions in Mexico got jobs instead of crossing into the U.S.. I actually bought a copy of Nafta back then. It pretty much just lowered tariffs which averaged 15% on US goods shipped to Mexico and 5% on Mexican goods shipped to the U.S.. Before NAFTA the playing field was tilted heavily against the U.S.. After the playing field was much flatter. It could have been better. For instance it could have required Mexico to raise their minimum wage in proportion to their per capita GDP, to protect out workers against their low wage workers. But I really don't understand why people oppose fixing the bad tilt of the trade playing field.