The Start-Up They Signed
“The one thing you have over me is experience,” Mr. Trump said at one point.
And yet it seemed clear through this last confrontation that there was a gap in knowledge, or at least in command of the material that candidates seeking to be president are expected to master.
“Take a look at the Start-Up they signed,” Mr. Trump said at one point, apparently referring to the Start nuclear arms reduction treaty.
— Hillary Clinton, Mocking and Taunting in Debate, Turns the Tormentor, Amy Chozick and Michael Barbaro, New York Times, yesterday
When Trump said that Wednesday night—said it really emphatically—Clinton’s facial expression reflected what I’m sure was mine: What the hell is he talking about?
I figured he was referring to some provision in NAFTA or the Paris climate-change accords, having to do with small-business startups.
So now I know I was wrong. And I even know what Start-Up they signed.
Glad I read the New York Times.
2 words for Donald Trump: de Rothschild.
Donald wants to gut US GDP per capita and turn the US into a low wage manufacturing society like Asia is today. The reason? You got billions of consumers in Asia. Reverse the current setup and walla, you get more ‘growth’ despite killing US living standards.
This is not a test. That was part of the whole “Brexit” plan as well with more non-white immigration flooding into the UK. This is not going over well in the American deep south. Where free trade and business transactions were a key part of them abandoning the Democratic party in the 1964 election when the Dem platform went full scale protectionist. Republicans have to put this fire out or face the coming 7th political realignment in American history, ripping the south apart and starting a new “coalition” with the west coast. Just think California,Texas and Florida all together………………
Good news. I have acquired access to “teh google” and I would be happy to let you use it too. I think the NY Times should be able to get their own, though.
Anyhow, I’m going to guess someone on The Donald’s staff is tied in with in the Defense establishment. As per this recent article:
The Donald may be nutty, but that doesn’t mean all his critiques of Hilary are off base. I remember the signing of this treaty when it happened, and it was a bad idea then. If a deal between two adversaries causes side A to give up some of its key self-defense capability but leaves side B’s key self-defense capabilities intact, it is fairly easy to figure out which side got played like a chump.
More from the magic of teh google from when Hilary was bragging about the treaty.
Yup, The Donald is nutty. He’s also stupifyingly stupid and ignorant, which was the intended point of this post. This particular critique of his may or may not be off base. But START treaties aren’t Start-Ups. This guy is the Republican nominee for president. And he thinks the latest START treaty is called a Start-Up.
You don’t think that’s a problem, I guess. Me? I think it’s a YUGE one.
Then again, maybe Trump’s pointed me to a good investment. Maybe I SHOULD take a look at that Start-Up.
Lordy. Just. Plain. Lordy.
I believe the nuke issue is simply a distraction, aside from the issue that Hillary is a war monger. As the USA had enough nukes in early 1960s to destroy the world 23 times.
Beene,
Trump believes he is a good negotiator and he believes Hilary is not. Additionally, as you note, Hilary has demonstrated either i) a fondness for war fought by other people, or ii) a willingness to catalyze wars fought by other people. You pick among i) and ii) depending on how much slack you are willing to give her. Hilary has also talked tough on Russia. Finally, he’s been touting his support with the military.
So Trump’s use of this as an issue makes sense if you happen to be standing in his shoes – it hits the good negotiator v. bad negotiator theme he has been touting, it touches on the perceptions many Americans have that she is a war enthusiast, it touches on her various statements on Russia, and it deals directly with a topic that his military supporters care about. Your mileage on any of those topics may well be different from Trump’s, but it isn’t hard to figure out why he would bring this up. And whether Trump is right or wrong, the fact that, as Beverly noted, Clinton had no idea he was talking about an issue that was negotiated on her watch is worrisome.
Mike:
Trump is a fear-monger who invests in scatology laying a fresh one at various intervals turning each to a fresh side while forever denying he is the instigator of the shite originally or the turn. Never admit to anything and deny, deny, deny.
For more on this go see Globalreaserch.org “Regime Change in Russia…Putin is an Obstacle ‘” 10-21-16 from Diane Johnstone who explains HRC’s secret hidden agenda of her shadow government…Also go see PaulCraigRoberts.org explain why we need “A complete regime change in America”.10-22-16. As the nuke issue will become more than a distraction if HRC wins the election…
Mike, agree that its been a winning issue from Trump’s view. Like his pointing out int the debate, that a no fly zone that Hillary wants and also is opposed by military high command as it is almost a declaration of war.
William, thanks for the article; for those interested it is at the URL below.
Bev, if this video on youtube is wrong and Hillary is elected. Start ups would be the wrong choose MIC all the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaOoFH8HHrk
Hmmm. The bursting of the housing market dot.com bubbles were caused not by political intent but by business and economic forces that some economists and some business experts predicted because they were standard-issue economic bubbles and money was being lent willy-nilly, in both instances. This woman’s boss predicted both? Great. What things did he predict that didn’t happen?
More important, why is this woman using predictions about unintended economic and business cycles and forces as a basis for why you should believe her boss’s predictions about intentional political decisions if the Democrats win the White House? You’ll lose your freedom! You won’t be allowed to do this or that!
What the hell does that kind of stuff have to do with predictions about unintended economic and business forces and cycles?
Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and other liberal economists, who made accurate predictions about such things as whether certain policies of the Federal Reserve Board, or higher national debt in relation to GDP, would cause inflation. They bet that inflation would remain very low for a long time. Here’s betting that this woman’s boss bet that inflation would skyrocket. The liberal economists were right, and this woman’s boss would have been wrong.
Geeeee, Beene. I’ve been holding onto the deed to this bridge across the East River in NYC and hoping for a good time to sell it. Or someone gullible enough to buy it. Are you interested? If not, maybe I’ll contact that woman in the video.
C’mon, Beene. Seriously. Think about what it is that you’re willing to believe.
Why would anyone who would listen to people like Roberts want to talk to normal people?
“Sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here. “
Bev, I’m desperate for any hope of anything but another Clinton.
I appreciate the offer of the bridge, will give it all the consideration it deserves. :~)