Hillary warns UK not to deal with Trump on trade deal

[Matty]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/15/hillary-clinton-warns-britain-on-potential-trade-deal-with-trump.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems somewhat rude to try to interfere in deals between two nations as a election loser.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's not like we have many cards to play.

[DrScholl]

She was asked a question and answered it.

[IceAgeComing]

I mean we can't negotiate any trade deal until 2019 at the earliest anyway (and I think that there'll have to be some kind of transitional arrangements, so that will likely be longer) so its a bit academic considering that Trump might not be around for long when we start talking anyway - considering that trade deals can take the best part of a decade to do!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She was asked a question and answered it.

And provided the same, correct, answer that many other private citizens and retired public servants would:  Trump is a lying, incompetent scumbag and no one should willingly deal with him.

[AtorBoltox]

Hillary's credibility and image around the globe is far higher than trump's. Foreign countries are more likely to listen to her than him

[Person Man]

Hillary's credibility and image around the globe is far higher than trump's. Foreign countries are more likely to listen to her than him

Except dictatorships. I take that back. They are sick of his ass, too.

[politicallefty]

As has already been said, she's right. I don't trust Trump to negotiate these kinds of deals. I'd love to see a US/UK FTA, but we need the right people at the table.

[Frodo]

Exactly the same advice the Democratic Party should take to heart -you can't deal with a madman. 

[RINO Tom]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

[Person Man]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

This is an OK analysis.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

This is an OK analysis.

No it isn't. You and I live in Florida. We saw the same ads. Clinton made a bunch of ads, one of which IIRC even literally showed Trump explaining to his audience how he uses the trade system that the Clinton's helped rig in his favor (a scene that I saw at a few Trump rallies regardless). If it were Mitt Romney giving that speech, he'd be booed off the stage. But with Trump, there is a naked transparency. He literally explains his political moves to his political base publicly, and yet the press somehow pretends to be shocked each time. I mean, for Christ's sake, he literally told us exactly what he was doing when he started the NFL brouhaha. And once again, he came out ahead.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/15/hillary-clinton-warns-britain-on-potential-trade-deal-with-trump.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He believes in fair trade, meaning we don't get f[inks]ed in every trade deal.

Will this woman ever go away?  #LOCKHERUP

[heatcharger]

Good, good. The next Democratic president should be the one getting credit for a fantastic trade deal where we get British beverages and aircraft parts duty-free.

[RINO Tom]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

This is an OK analysis.

No it isn't. You and I live in Florida. We saw the same ads. Clinton made a bunch of ads, one of which IIRC even literally showed Trump explaining to his audience how he uses the trade system that the Clinton's helped rig in his favor (a scene that I saw at a few Trump rallies regardless). If it were Mitt Romney giving that speech, he'd be booed off the stage. But with Trump, there is a naked transparency. He literally explains his political moves to his political base publicly, and yet the press somehow pretends to be shocked each time. I mean, for Christ's sake, he literally told us exactly what he was doing when he started the NFL brouhaha. And once again, he came out ahead.

Well, the "analysis" wasn't about your fearless leader and his amazing tactics, it was about Hillary Clinton being incredibly fake.

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's not like Britain didn't succumb to a terrible, populist move.

[Crumpets]

De facto Secretary of State. Love it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

Living in Michigan, I saw a completely different set of ads.

[NewYorkExpress]

I agree with Hillary, but she's basically violating the Logan Act saying this... if anyone should be saying this, it should be someone like Tim Kaine, Chris Murphy or Gregory Meeks, who serve on House/Senate Foreign Relations committees, and the corresponding subcommittees (with exception of Kaine).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

She was asked a question and answered it.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Invisible Obama, but this.

[Mr. Reactionary]

OMG! Treason! At least under the new "colloquial" definition.

[DavidB.]

It's not like Britain didn't succumb to a (...) populist move.

Which of our countries hasn't?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I, of course, completely agree with her ... but this epitomizes many people's issue with Hillary Clinton.  I know many of you don't live in states that often get a TON of campaign commercials (talking about Iowa here for me), but Hillary was 110% running as a more protectionist candidate than Trump during the election.  Period.  She ran TV ads pointing out how Trump was always a fan of outsourcing and free trade and insinuated his protectionism is totally fake; I have always found the Atlas narrative that she was fine being the "more pro-free trade" candidate to be total and utter BS, yet now she is labeling him as anti-trade as if it's an insult (which, I think it is ... but stay consistent...).

This is an OK analysis.

No it isn't. You and I live in Florida. We saw the same ads. Clinton made a bunch of ads, one of which IIRC even literally showed Trump explaining to his audience how he uses the trade system that the Clinton's helped rig in his favor (a scene that I saw at a few Trump rallies regardless). If it were Mitt Romney giving that speech, he'd be booed off the stage. But with Trump, there is a naked transparency. He literally explains his political moves to his political base publicly, and yet the press somehow pretends to be shocked each time. I mean, for Christ's sake, he literally told us exactly what he was doing when he started the NFL brouhaha. And once again, he came out ahead.

1. When did he say this?
2. He really didn't.

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's not like Britain didn't succumb to a (...) populist move.

Which of our countries hasn't?

None But Clinton seems to be implying that America is now tainted because Trump.

[AtorBoltox]

It's not like Britain didn't succumb to a (...) populist move.

Which of our countries hasn't?

None But Clinton seems to be implying that America is now tainted because Trump.

Well, yeah, it unquestionably is