2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed
cross posted from GDHillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed In Latest State Department Release
An email Oct. 8, 2011, to Clinton from her aide Huma Abedin gave notes about the state of play in Congress on the proposed trade pacts. The notes provided Clinton some background before you make the calls to legislators.
Two days later in an email titled FTA calls, Clinton wrote to aides indicating she had spoken to Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim Webb of Virginia, both Democrats. She told the aides she had talked with Webb who is strong in favor of all 3 trade agreements, and then asked, So why did I call him? indicating she was otherwise phoning to try to convince wavering lawmakers to support the deals.
Only three years earlier, Clinton wooed organized labor during her presidential campaign with promises to oppose those same deals. She called the South Korea agreement inherently unfair. She also said, I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Clinton has lately courted organized labors support for her current presidential bid by pledging to oppose the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a deal she repeatedly touted while secretary of state.
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-emails-secret-negotiations-new-york-times-trade-bill-lobbying-2315809?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
yourout
(7,527 posts)This stuff is toxic to Hillary and Rachael's back must be getting sore from all the water she has been carrying for her.
Maybe she should go to Flint and carry some water for them.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)As a Rachel fan, even I can see that something fishy is going on with her show. At least I think so.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Then again, neither can humans.
This hole steaming mess is just so . Hillarian.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)her hard work on Flint, which I applaud. Flint isn't the reason. I would say that is kind of a red herring.
PS: Flint River should be renamed as a Hazardous Waste dump. And should have Danger placards posted every 50 feet, on both sides of the river, for a fair stretch on feet or miles.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)Another corporate giant. Another foe of Bernie. Not necessarily Rachel but she does have to keep her employer pleased.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)He chose to retain his journalistic integrity and move to the net...
http://digiday.com/publishers/the-young-turks-interview/
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)on any payments or missed any meals since he left MSNBC.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)to pay the bills?
There's people that would rather starve than to compromise their ideals and integrity.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Cenk is one of the good ones.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)peace!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The Ring of Fire radio station. Carried over the internets at any point in time I care to lsiten.
Someone of Maddow's stature, with a steady job, good pay and ability to have continual media coverage doesn't understand and probably cannot understand what it means to be working class.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Whatever group she's speaking to and polling.
No core.
Changes position like wind. Head snapping changes.
This is why we support Bernie.
He has a core vision we understand.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hillary lying trying" to be straight with the American people. Let me know if you find anything.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Lorien
(31,935 posts)she has no message except "No we can't", and no solid position on any issue. I swear, sometimes it seems like some sort of mind control technique is being used on her followers. I even know a union rep who loves her, and when I asked him to explain why (he's usually a wordy fellow, has written several massive books) all he could come up with was "my wife and I met her once and we liked her." That's it. Nothing else. Just bizarre!
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and will stick with
Lorien
(31,935 posts)Truly, are her supporters truly IN FAVOR of the TPP, massive outsourcing and environmental destruction? And what about her boldfaced lies? Are those OK too?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)cheaper goods and everybody benefits! whee!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hell, most jobs "went" to China, and we don't have an FTA with them.
NAFTA is a convenient punching bag, and not much else.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)NAFTA fucked us over royally, or maybe you're too young to remember America before NAFTA?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You've been sold a bill of goods; NAFTA was a fairly decent trade agreement (though small potatoes; trade with Mexico is about 3% of our GDP) that slightly slowed the loss of manufacturing jobs that had started in the 1960s. Unemployment went down, wages went up, and real incomes went up. Probably a small fraction of that was NAFTA (again, 3% of the GDP), but the economy was certainly better after it than before it, so I have trouble taking the dystopian arguments about it seriously.
Also keep in mind I'm from the south, which did better in the 1990s than the midwest and northeast.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)you are confusing the dot com bubble with "a decent trade agreement". I made a great six figure income in the 90s, no doubt. But NAFTA's effects were just beginning. The full effect of it came after 2000. Look at Flint, MI; it's the poster child for the effects of NAFTA.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I definitely agree the midwest got screwed and the sunbelt got all the benefits. But if you're just going to magically assign a 6 year delay to its effect (and ignore the disastrous Bush tax cuts that intervened), well, sure: you can persuade yourself of anything.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Although U.S. domestic exports to its NAFTA partners have increased dramaticallywith real growth of 95.2% to Mexico and 41% to Canadagrowth in imports of 195.3% from Mexico and 61.1% from Canada overwhelmingly surpass export growth, as shown in Table 1. The resulting $30 billion U.S. net export deficit with these countries in 1993 increased by 281% to $85 billion in 2002 (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars). As a result, NAFTA has led to job losses in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as shown in Figure 1. Through September 2003, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has increased 12% over the same period last year (U.S. Census Bureau 2003a). Job losses for the remainder of 2003 are likely to grow at a similar rate.
. . . .
Net job loss figures range from a low of 719 in Alaska to a high of 115,723 in California. Other hard-hit states include New York, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Tennessee, each with more than 20,000 jobs lost. These states all have high concentrations of industries where a large number of plants have moved to Mexico (such as motor vehicles, textiles and apparel, computers, and electrical appliances). Manufacturing industries were responsible for 78% of the net jobs lost under NAFTA, a total of 686,700 manufacturing jobs.
While job losses in most states are modest relative to the size of the economy, it is important to remember that the promise of new jobs was the principal justification for NAFTA. According to NAFTAs promoters, the new jobs would compensate for the increased environmental degradation, economic instability, and public health dangers that NAFTA brings (Lee 1995, 10-11). If NAFTA does not deliver an increase in net jobs, it cant provide enough benefits to offset the costs it imposes.
Long-term stagnation and growing inequality
NAFTA has also contributed to growing income inequality and to the declining relative wages of U.S. workers without college degree, who made up 72.1% of the workforce in 2001 (Mishel et al. 2003, 163). NAFTA, however, is but one contributor to a larger process of globalization and growing structural trade deficits that has shaped the U.S. economy and society over the last few decades.6 Rapid growth in U.S. trade and foreign investment as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) has played a large role in the growth of inequality in income distribution in the last 20 years. NAFTA has continued and accelerated international economic integration, and thus contributed to the growing tradeoffs that have accompanied this integration process.
Lots more at . . . .
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/
It has only gotten worse.
For information on the epi:
http://www.epi.org/
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But it isn't and they weren't. 23 million net jobs were created in that period; 500K manufacturing job losses are barely a rounding error there. And they were higher paying jobs, too, as witnessed by the fact that median wages and incomes saw their only real rise in the past 40 years in the period immediately after the implementation of NAFTA. Again, NAFTA didn't do that (we don't actually trade very much with Mexico, and China is the big powerhouse in that question), but it clearly couldn't have caused an employment loss that ended up not actually happening.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Here is the problem, statistically, median wages and incomes have not risen in the long run.
NAFTA has cost the US its industry and its economic independence. I am 72 years old. I remember the industry we had before NAFTA. I watched C-Span in 1985 when the Congress was discussing whether to change laws that would permit us to negotiate the kinds of trade agreements we have today. A Democratic senator forecast that if we allowed this kind of trade, we would end up handing each other hamburgers for a living. We are nearly at that point.
Lots of nail studios, hair salons and other kinds of low-level service jobs -- hard on your feet for relatively low pay -- on the business street in my area.
We used to have a lot of industry, lots of it, in America.
My favorite example is the loss of the company, Maytag. Used to make the wonderful, solid, well-built, durable washing machines in Newton, Iowa. That factory was lost.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-town-maytag-left-behind?
Maytag was purchased by Whirlpool which moved production of the washers to its plants.
The production was then moved to Monterrey, Mexico.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/1790/maytag_moves_to_mexico
And in 2013, at least some of the production was moved back to the US but not to Newton, Iowa.
I have a good Maytag that was produced in Newton, Iowa. It still works and is excellent.
It's so sad that we have had this movement of our industry, sales of good manufacturers, moving the production to other countries. It has brought with it economic disruption, insecurity and serious social problems.
Very sad. And when you think of all the moving of plants and disruption of life that the changes in location for Maytag washers and similar products have meant, you have to ask whether it was worth and if so, for whom. Because it certainly has not been worth it for ordinary Americans.
Hence the great enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders.
Had it not been for the trade agreements and the excessive greed of a few at the top of the financial heap in America, Bernie would probably remain a quietly independent senator. But mark my words, he will be president. And he will push for laws that require companies that want to outsource and import but don't want to invest in good jobs for ordinary people in the US to pay high taxes for the privilege of selling products in the US.
We cannot survive as a country if we continue our current trade policies. Our trade deficit is too high. We will not survive with that kind of imbalance of trade.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)courts that NAFTA, the WTO and other trade agreements entail. I especially object to the idea of a trade court to enforce the TPP.
They will deal the final blow to what remains of our democracy.
They are regrettable and will be used to prevent efforts to save our environment.
If people knew more about the cases that have been brought to the NAFTA court, they would not support any trade agreements.
We need to preserve enough sovereignty to safeguard our environment at the very least. These trade agreements do not do that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think they're fairly good (we do keep winning in them) and much better than tariff wars as a way of resolving trade disputes.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Have you had anything at all to do with any case in a trade arbitration court?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Though I was just maintaining their servers, not doing anything with policy. I guess that ended up being more of a draw than a win.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)the US for not agreeing to build the Keystone pipeline, using NAFTA terms? Or did I hear that wrong?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)That Ross Perot was right about trade deals and his famous line "and all you'll hear is the sucking sound from all the jobs leaving the country". And this was before NAFTA
Recursion
(56,582 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)We've been bleeding jobs to Asia since the 1970s, and people look at one tiny attempt to exert some control over that (FTAs) and convince themselves that they're the cause rather than the symptom.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)ballooned our trade deficit with Canada and Mexico and cut our exports to those countries by nearly half. NAFTA is indeed a convenient punching back, it deserves every punch it takes and then some, and so do the Clintons for peddling it.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I guess they're missing the connection.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Otherwise, how could they defend Hillary and vote for her? Hillary believes that the ends justify the means, her fans must believe the same thing.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)It really is just the Superbowl to them. SMH
jfern
(5,204 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and puppy shoot with Cheney and they'd tie themselves into five-dimensional knots trying to spin/justify/excuse it. Guaranteed.
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)It boggles the mind.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)He could have wrapped a white male Christian baby in the flag, doused him with gasoline and lit him on fire in the middle of Times Square, and he still would have been golden to them.
SamKnause
(13,101 posts)Some of our fellow citizens are mighty strange.
Some are even frightening.
I didn't expect to see as much of it as I do on this site.
I know these people are well informed.
I just don't understand it.
DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...the Rachel thing... They may be well informed but many are probably paid or promised reward so all of a sudden a whole bunch of people start saying the same, elitist, smug lies about a good man...
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)They're just liberal socially, or pretend it's worth having ( what's left of ) the working class thrown under the bus so that they can play global do-gooder and/or advance their pet social issue(s).
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Pinpoint accuracy.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thought your job couldn't be sent overseas? They will get someone to come here and work for 1/2 of what you are now making.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)She cannot and will not be president.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)I don't think she knows how to tell the truth anymore! Lying is the norm for her. It really is pathological.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)technical term for it: Nixonitis.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Nixon was to her left...
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)If you insist!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)He did give us the EPA, OSHA, and an expanded food stamp program.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)✌
But I get your point and on many issues he was left of her.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I'd need a second opinion.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I would count my fingers very carefully afterwards.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)It's not worth corrupting myself to get that finger back; 'specially when she tells me I've got a special place in hell for being a left-wing tea partier who refuses to get with the program.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I think "hand sanitizer".
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Kall
(615 posts)must have internalized that, at this point.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)And this shows why she needs to release her transcripts. Proof from herself that she lies to union, labor and voters!
Only three years earlier, Clinton wooed organized labor during her presidential campaign with promises to oppose those same deals. She called the South Korea agreement inherently unfair. She also said, I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Clinton has lately courted organized labors support for her current presidential bid by pledging to oppose the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a deal she repeatedly touted while secretary of state.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Nice system she has going there.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)and we go to "that special place in hell" for not getting with her program.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)the brazen audacity to deceive her supporters with pledges on specific and important policy matters.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)It was a stupid thing to do.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You know, I don't like Dr. Phil, yet I keep quoting him. Those who have nothing to hide hide nothing.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Deleting.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)K & R. Bookmarking too. This is a big deal.
Thanks for sharing.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)I don't understand. With the FBI investigations, with her constant lying, the Dem Establishment must Really be Afraid of Sanders?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Bernie coming in would shake the system to its core and with any luck a lot of sinecures will disappear or shift, of course people doing well in the current system are afraid of major changes.
The Clintons are well known to harshly punish those they feel have been personally disloyal, if Clinton does happen to win the election and you were a Democratic Sanders supporter you are in a heap of trouble.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)That is potentially impacted by these deals, should be contacting their leadership for a public statement. Further, if their union endorsed HRC, they should request a retraction.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)Citing these emails as a reason and it would be 24/7 in the news.
But, really, what are the odds of that?
If nothing else, this election is hinting at just how far down the rabbit hole goes.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)those deals, and told HIS Secretary of State to support it, I would expect her to do as she was told because that was her job: to carry out HIS WISHES and not her own.
If President Obama supported these agreements, this is a non-issue for me.
That isn't lying; that is chain-of-command.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I believe one possible course is to resign.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)RELATIONSHIPS, REPUTATION and PRESTIGE are involved.
I think she did a good job in that role and was pleased when Obama tapped her for it.
If she didn't or he was unhappy, he would have fired her. He didn't. She left after a good tenure.
And for me, if her boss told her to do something, she should have done it.
Sometimes you can convince your boss to do things your way. Sometimes you can't.
President Obama won the election. That makes him the boss.
I do not support this line of attack as to policy making. I believe chain of command is important and expect government officials reporting directly to the President to offer their best opinions, then do what they are ordered.
I don't see having a different opinion as lying.
antigop
(12,778 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Hillary's position on these issues in 2008 became irrelevant when SHE LOST THE ELECTION.
The person whose opinion became important was President Obama. All good employees are expected to advocate and offer their best advice/opinion, but at the end of the day, you do what your boss orders. Or you quit if you aren't willing to follow orders.
I will not criticize Secretary Clinton for supporting President Obama's directives, even when she disagreed with them, because that is something only people who have never had a job with a boss would think is acceptable.
I still prefer Senator Sanders for President, but this is just as stupid as Photogate.
I am moving on.
antigop
(12,778 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Or wants to convince us she did.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I disagree with this line of attack. It negates context.
I still prefer Sanders.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-nevada-219516
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb19thWeb/08622FEB19/DOC_0C05762597/C05762597.pdf
snip/
Another Slaughter email reflects early frustration on the Clinton team with perceptions (and perhaps reality) that the Obama White House was driving the train on foreign policy.
"More and more I am hearing things about how the White House is setting the agenda and [Clinton] is just the implementer. For her stature and and longer-term impact she has to seize this moment to flesh out a real foreign policy strategy rather than just a set of proposals, as important as they are. The president has given her the opening," Slaughter wrote in a June 10, 2009 email.
The message, sent to Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and forwarded to Clinton, called it "critical" that she make such a speech following a major address Clinton gave in Cairo earlier that month.
Clinton delivered the speech outlining her foreign policy vision on July 15. This is the same speech that has drawn attention in recent days over deals the Clinton team appeared to cut with one or more journalists to describe the address as "muscular."
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Sometimes you can't.
I think she was a good Secretary of State. I also think Obama is an excellent President.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Glamrock
(11,797 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)simply acquiesced than she deserves to be dissed.
TubbersUK
(1,439 posts)for example, Libya.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-nevada-219516
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)snips/
The emails reflect the near-jubilation of Clinton's allies over what appears to be her success at persuading President Barack Obama to join a military intervention in Libya. The operation was billed as humanitarian, but ultimately led to the toppling of Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi.
"I cannot imagine how exhausted you must be after this week, but I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you," former State policy planning director Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote to Clinton in a March 19, 2011 message bearing the subject line "bravo!" and sent two days after passage of a key U.N. Security Council resolution on the crisis. "Turning POTUS around on this is a major win for everything we have worked for."
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)to see if any emails appear showing she pushed back against the trade agreements she promised she would oppose?
antigop
(12,778 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Good one. hoisted on her own petard!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Mentirosa!!
FailureToCommunicate
(14,013 posts)iemitsu
(3,888 posts)markpkessinger
(8,395 posts)Lorien
(31,935 posts)Lies and the lying liars who tell them!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)in one place is helpful as we move forward in the Campaign and the "Kitchen Sink" is thrown at Bernie as the Clinton Campaign gets even more vicious.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)More of the sleeze floating to the surface of the septic tank..
grasswire
(50,130 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)No wonder her major donors are so comfortable when she veers into populist rhetoric during her campaign speeches.
They know Hillary has two very different messages depending on the room and they seem very confident the real Hillary is the one speaking to them.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)Prolly have a good laugh thinking about all the little people lapping it up and believing it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, breaking, SoS lobbies for US policy?
Lorien
(31,935 posts)she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)ebayfool
(3,411 posts)http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-nevada-219516
snip/
Asserting Clinton's role as a foreign policy strategist
Another Slaughter email reflects early frustration on the Clinton team with perceptions (and perhaps reality) that the Obama White House was driving the train on foreign policy.
"More and more I am hearing things about how the White House is setting the agenda and [Clinton] is just the implementer. For her stature and and longer-term impact she has to seize this moment to flesh out a real foreign policy strategy rather than just a set of proposals, as important as they are. The president has given her the opening," Slaughter wrote in a June 10, 2009 email.
The message, sent to Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills and forwarded to Clinton, called it "critical" that she make such a speech following a major address Clinton gave in Cairo earlier that month.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)This seems quite similar to her Iraq War vote. For her, it appears that expediency rules over principle and judgment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't think we pushed Vietnam hard enough, personally, but there's nothing in there that strikes me as radically different to begin with. I do think she'd do better if she made that case rather than buckling under to the trade know-nothings, but that's probably an impossible bridge for a Democrat this cycle.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)completely unacceptable.
turbinetree
(24,695 posts)Honk-----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)But really, she doesn't give a damn who she sells out.
Contrast that with our other choices and it seems pretty clear, right? Educate the electorate. Elect someone who is for the people instead of someone who is in it for the power.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)doesn't that justify that?
PatrickforO
(14,572 posts)And will do her best to 'level' with the American people.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)No, that wasn't it. Still thinking...
xocet
(3,871 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Their spin is amazing.
xocet
(3,871 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 20, 2016, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Whether or not it is a Higgs boson is demonstrated by how it interacts with other particles, and its quantum properties. For example, a Higgs boson is postulated to have no spin, and in the Standard Model its parity a measure of how its mirror image behaves should be positive. CMS and ATLAS have compared a number of options for the spin-parity of this particle, and these all prefer no spin and positive parity. This, coupled with the measured interactions of the new particle with other particles, strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson.
...
http://home.cern/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I appreciate the extra knowledge but pardon my ignorance if they don't use particle accelerators that basically accelerate particles in a big circle to help discover it, aka a big spin machine?
xocet
(3,871 posts)What you say is approximately correct, but spin takes on a very particular meaning in physics, a meaning which does not apply to a description of a collider. Spin instead is a property of particles. Particles are related to fields. And on it goes...
The particle data group publishes detailed listings of the properties of the known particles - here is the listing for the Higgs boson:
If you look around on their website, there is a lot of technical information - spin will be frequently mentioned:
In the case that you find this sort of thing very fascinating, here is a link to a set of lectures on colliders:
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I do find it fascinating - thanks for the links and additional information.
Response to TubbersUK (Original post)
TubbersUK This message was self-deleted by its author.
burrowowl
(17,640 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)MANY SEEM NOT TO CARE!
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)before people stop believing her
Got it
(59 posts)...another slop pile with HRC serving herself and her masters.
We really deserve better.
amborin
(16,631 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)She is currently against TPP but the US Chamber of Commerce has informed it's membership not to worry because after the election, she will be "currently" in favor of TPP.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)to constantly lie to the public on where you stand, and then secretly be pushing for the opposite.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)rachel@msnbc.com
Let's see if she responds
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)Now let's see if they cover the story.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Amazing.
This is our supposed best candidate? (Nonexistent) God help us.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Michigan, and Ohio, as well as Pennsylvania.
They should also hear what Bernie was talking about on the 2007 Immigration bill that Hillary voted for.
Those will piss off a lot of blue collar workers. She threw them under the bus supporting NAFTA (and then flip-flopping) and she's doing it again.