“You need both a public and a private position”
October 11, 2016 2 Comments
Well, I probably don’t need to tell you who said that. But yes, it was Hillary Clinton, in one of her high priced confidential speeches, you know, on Wall Street and such. What she said a bit more fully, is this.
She says, “you need both a public and a private position.” One for public consumption and the other for what you really believe.
Pamela Engel in Business Insider says this.
In one speech she gave to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she advocated for “open trade and open borders.”
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere,” Clinton said.
In the same speech, she also said the US needs “a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances.”. . .
Clinton says on the campaign trail that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade agreement championed by President Barack Obama that aims to slash tariffs and promote economic growth among 12 nations in the Pacific Rim.
Clinton has publicly opposed TPP since October 2015, when the text of the deal was finalized.
“I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president,” she said at acampaign rally in Michigan in August.
But her opposition marked a departure from the praise she gave the deal during her tenure as secretary of state. She once said TPP “sets the gold standard of trade agreements.”
In another private speech mentioned in the Clark email, Clinton said it’s important to have both a “public” and “private” position on certain issues.
“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” she said. “So, you need both a public and a private position. “
On free trade, well, I’m sympathetic to her private position, although I do think there need to be safeguards to make trade fair as well as free, but protectionism isn’t going to work. Never has, never will. Open borders is a completely different kettle of fish, we can always use immigrants provided they bring something with them, we don’t have enough low skilled labor jobs anymore for our people, so it’s silly to import more. We don’t need to end immigration, but we do need to control it.
But her beliefs on any given issue is not the point, really. The point is the hypocrisy of having one position in public for the rubes that live in the country, and a diametrically opposite one for the so-called elites that run it. That’s enough for me to decide she’s unfit for any government position.
She simply untrustworthy, but we’ve known that for decades.