The source is irrelevant

Trump is correct when he calls for ripping up trade agreements such as NAFTA and renegotiating them in a way that benefits US workers more.

And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying that it will cost jobs…in the short term (Corasaniti, 2016).

Trump is many things.  And whatever his true agenda it’s one that differs from Mr. Sanders’ agenda fundamentally.  In fact if someone were to ask me Trump’s agenda I wouldn’t know how to answer. 

Trump’s “why” doesn’t interest me. 

But one can speculate:  as a spoiler in this election, when Trump says things which are true it could be a contrived means of pushing many Americans toward the moderate republican ideas of Mrs. Clinton.  People’s natural revulsion to Trump translates to people gravitating toward the opposite of what he says without thinking. 

When Mr. T says we should tear up global trade deals which for three decades have drained this country of jobs, leaving mostly service and low paying jobs in their wake, and leaving automated manufacturing jobs and weakened unions he is absolutely correct. 

Bernie supporters recognize this as resonate of what Bernie says.   

Yet again, I  have to emphasize this:  people’s disgust of Trump translates to people gravitating toward any words that sound different than his. 

And that would be a mistake. This is how Mrs. Clinton would steal independent voters from both Trump and Sanders and win by a seeming landslide and mandate, heralding in a new era of global trade deals, dwindling jobs and salaries, budgetary crises, and endless warfare over dwindling oil sales amid a cornucopia of arms deals.

Mrs. Clinton is for global trade deals.  Mrs. Clinton said NAFTA didn’t perform as the writers would have liked it to (as far as helping bring back jobs to the US—but it was never designed to do that, let’s face it).  In contrast, a significant portion of US citizens are against putting more of these trade deals in place which have historically favored rich investors and corporations, cost jobs, lowered wages, and which Noam Chomsky calls "Investor Rights Agreements” instead of Free Trade Agreements.  Yet Mrs. Clinton, with the full might of the Democratic National Committee and the global corporate media backing her and spinning her agenda to seem somehow as progressive as Bernie Sanders’ agenda is now justified in saying she will pass TPP when it measures up to her standards when she is viewed through the visceral and emotional lens of people’s revulsion of Mr. Trump. 

Again, this is the wrong reaction. 

It’s like being herded into a canyon with no way out. 

Mrs. Clinton is backed by many deep pocketed concerns.  She is rumored to be endorsed by the Koch brothers, former vice president Richard Cheney, and Wall Street.    We can say definitively she is not backed by 45% of registered democrats in the US; and she is not backed by independents.  But if people act on the emotion of revulsion against Mr. Trump, they will instinctually back Clinton even though she is against their interests.  It will be an gut response.  And Mrs. Clinton will tell the US people that this is her mandate:  “Trump wanted to tear up the trade deals; I have a more reasonable solution of making them more protective of jobs and manufacturing in the US.” 

This of course would be contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s backers; and a set up for someone twenty years down the line to say “The TPP didn’t perform like we wanted it to…” We must assume that any deals Mrs. Clinton negotiates, and any “high bar” she sanctions must favor her deep pocketed backers and not the American worker.  We only can speculate on how much her backers have supported her:  a close look at the donors to the Clinton foundation would probably be very revealing as to where Mrs. Clinton and her husband’s loyalties lie; and who would most benefit from their efforts.

The US Chamber of Commerce is also correct:  If we renegotiate our trade deals and dismiss any further global trade deals, it will affect jobs in the short term.  Key phrase “in the short term.”  I’m no economist but I do know that any realignment of the economy will have an adjustment period.  We are accustomed to adjusting in a downward way since the nineteen eighties.  Nonetheless with an end to trade deals we will be faced with the choice of enacting a US jobs stimulus package to fuel the economy, which is in line with Mr. Sanders’ vision again.  While this won’t be overnight, it seems to me it would be moving us in a more upward direction.

Trump is correct in saying we need to tear up our global trade deals; and not ratify anymore.  His braggadocio, his Machiavellian disregard of the vulnerable, his lack of experience in government affairs disqualify him for office.  But he’s not dumb.  And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying jobs would be affected in the short term.  But in a good way in the long term is the part they leave out.    An end to global trade deals might be one of many ways to stimulate the flow of money back to the many instead of ever upward to the few.

One of Mr. Sanders’ trademarks as an independent in Congress for three decades is that he’s had to dialogue and work with many Representatives and Senators with opposing views and with loyalties to strong pocketed billionaires and corporations.  He’s had to work with congress-people backed by powerful global entities, and who don’t always play fair.  This not only takes a great deal of courage to stand alone in the body of congress backed by powers that influence the media and therefore public opinion at any given time and can motivate public opinion through the media even against you; but it also takes the ability to see where the other person is right, despite their backing or agenda.  And understanding that they can be correct for the wrong reasons, be they manipulative or just naïve.  In this manner I suppose the truth can never be used to manipulate you when you are willing to see where the other person is right.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html

Bernie Sanders is constantly gracious to his opponents and counterparts in the congress.  And he knows the value of using whatever point of view is right toward his focused agenda which is to benefit the needs of the many in this country, into the future. 

That is the independent spirit. 

Sanders provides a powerful example for us to follow on how to be successful as independents and progressives by acknowledging what is right, while calling out bigotry and hatred, warmongering and profiteering.  And while using the truth to move toward the ideals which we are focusing on and refining:  End the trade deals that benefit the few.  Vote for a congress that will stand up as Bernie is teaching us to stand.

 

Corasaniti, N. (2016, June 29). Donald Trump assails U.S. Chamber of Commerce over trade. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html?_r=0

The source is irrelevant

Trump is correct when he calls for ripping up trade agreements such as NAFTA and renegotiating them in a way that benefits US workers more.

And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying that it will cost jobs…in the short term (Corasaniti, 2016).

Trump is many things.  And whatever his true agenda it’s one that differs from Mr. Sanders’ agenda fundamentally.  In fact if someone were to ask me Trump’s agenda I wouldn’t know how to answer. 

Trump’s “why” doesn’t interest me. 

But one can speculate:  as a spoiler in this election, when Trump says things which are true it could be a contrived means of pushing many Americans toward the moderate republican ideas of Mrs. Clinton.  People’s natural revulsion to Trump translates to people gravitating toward the opposite of what he says without thinking. 

When Mr. T says we should tear up global trade deals which for three decades have drained this country of jobs, leaving mostly service and low paying jobs in their wake, and leaving automated manufacturing jobs and weakened unions he is absolutely correct. 

Bernie supporters recognize this as resonate of what Bernie says.   

Yet again, I  have to emphasize this:  people’s disgust of Trump translates to people gravitating toward any words that sound different than his. 

And that would be a mistake. This is how Mrs. Clinton would steal independent voters from both Trump and Sanders and win by a seeming landslide and mandate, heralding in a new era of global trade deals, dwindling jobs and salaries, budgetary crises, and endless warfare over dwindling oil sales amid a cornucopia of arms deals.

Mrs. Clinton is for global trade deals.  Mrs. Clinton said NAFTA didn’t perform as the writers would have liked it to (as far as helping bring back jobs to the US—but it was never designed to do that, let’s face it).  In contrast, a significant portion of US citizens are against putting more of these trade deals in place which have historically favored rich investors and corporations, cost jobs, lowered wages, and which Noam Chomsky calls "Investor Rights Agreements” instead of Free Trade Agreements.  Yet Mrs. Clinton, with the full might of the Democratic National Committee and the global corporate media backing her and spinning her agenda to seem somehow as progressive as Bernie Sanders’ agenda is now justified in saying she will pass TPP when it measures up to her standards when she is viewed through the visceral and emotional lens of people’s revulsion of Mr. Trump. 

Again, this is the wrong reaction. 

It’s like being herded into a canyon with no way out. 

Mrs. Clinton is backed by many deep pocketed concerns.  She is rumored to be endorsed by the Koch brothers, former vice president Richard Cheney, and Wall Street.    We can say definitively she is not backed by 45% of registered democrats in the US; and she is not backed by independents.  But if people act on the emotion of revulsion against Mr. Trump, they will instinctually back Clinton even though she is against their interests.  It will be an gut response.  And Mrs. Clinton will tell the US people that this is her mandate:  “Trump wanted to tear up the trade deals; I have a more reasonable solution of making them more protective of jobs and manufacturing in the US.” 

This of course would be contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s backers; and a set up for someone twenty years down the line to say “The TPP didn’t perform like we wanted it to…” We must assume that any deals Mrs. Clinton negotiates, and any “high bar” she sanctions must favor her deep pocketed backers and not the American worker.  We only can speculate on how much her backers have supported her:  a close look at the donors to the Clinton foundation would probably be very revealing as to where Mrs. Clinton and her husband’s loyalties lie; and who would most benefit from their efforts.

The US Chamber of Commerce is also correct:  If we renegotiate our trade deals and dismiss any further global trade deals, it will affect jobs in the short term.  Key phrase “in the short term.”  I’m no economist but I do know that any realignment of the economy will have an adjustment period.  We are accustomed to adjusting in a downward way since the nineteen eighties.  Nonetheless with an end to trade deals we will be faced with the choice of enacting a US jobs stimulus package to fuel the economy, which is in line with Mr. Sanders’ vision again.  While this won’t be overnight, it seems to me it would be moving us in a more upward direction.

Trump is correct in saying we need to tear up our global trade deals; and not ratify anymore.  His braggadocio, his Machiavellian disregard of the vulnerable, his lack of experience in government affairs disqualify him for office.  But he’s not dumb.  And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying jobs would be affected in the short term.  But in a good way in the long term is the part they leave out.    An end to global trade deals might be one of many ways to stimulate the flow of money back to the many instead of ever upward to the few.

One of Mr. Sanders’ trademarks as an independent in Congress for three decades is that he’s had to dialogue and work with many Representatives and Senators with opposing views and with loyalties to strong pocketed billionaires and corporations.  He’s had to work with congress-people backed by powerful global entities, and who don’t always play fair.  This not only takes a great deal of courage to stand alone in the body of congress backed by powers that influence the media and therefore public opinion at any given time and can motivate public opinion through the media even against you; but it also takes the ability to see where the other person is right, despite their backing or agenda.  And understanding that they can be correct for the wrong reasons, be they manipulative or just naïve.  In this manner I suppose the truth can never be used to manipulate you when you are willing to see where the other person is right.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html

Bernie Sanders is constantly gracious to his opponents and counterparts in the congress.  And he knows the value of using whatever point of view is right toward his focused agenda which is to benefit the needs of the many in this country, into the future. 

That is the independent spirit. 

Sanders provides a powerful example for us to follow on how to be successful as independents and progressives by acknowledging what is right, while calling out bigotry and hatred, warmongering and profiteering.  And while using the truth to move toward the ideals which we are focusing on and refining:  End the trade deals that benefit the few.  Vote for a congress that will stand up as Bernie is teaching us to stand.

 

Corasaniti, N. (2016, June 29). Donald Trump assails U.S. Chamber of Commerce over trade. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html?_r=0

Yesterday's Deal

What’s plausible is that The Democratic Establishment made a deal with Hillary in 2008 that if she conceded the race to Obama she would get a top cabinet position in the Obama administration; and the Democratic establishment would throw their full weight behind her in her presidential bid in 2016.

In light of that probability anything that’s happened in this primary season is understandable.

But the world is a lot different than it was in 2008. And yesterday’s candidate, if she doesn’t respond to the times, doesn’t look as good in today’s light. 

That’s what The Democratic Establishment doesn’t get. 

Or they get it and just don’t care.

Hillary as Secretary of State proved to be a strong proponent of regime change. 

·       Regime change has benefitted arms dealers and arms manufactures mostly, let’s face it.  

Hillary proved to be a strong partner of Wall Street and global corporate interests.

·       Wall Street profits after the public bailout and our bank accounts earn less than 1% interest.

Hillary proved to be good friends with the oil industry and fracking. 

·       Fracking leaves toxic chemicals in our water supplies and benefits big oil while gas prices don’t come down at all for long.

Hillary’s foundation has been linked to collusion in arms dealing to the Saudi’s and awarding lucrative defense contracts to top donors. 

·       International Business Times and other sources document this allegation.

And all of that is actually business as usual in the big business of big boy and big girl politics in America in the new millennium.  Obama will be rich too and have a foundation, no doubt.  Chomsky says there is no real “conspiracy” in US politics; there is only business a usual…and in that paradigm many things are permissible and ethical In US politics.  It’s just a matter of whose interests you represent, and/or which side of that coin you land on.

But yesteryear’s candidate and yesterday’s deal are  not responsive to today’s enlightenment. 

Trump’s success in the primaries reflects a backlash of mainstream America against establishment politics on the GOP side.  Sanders’ success reflects a backlash on the Democrat side.  If not for The Democratic Establishment superdelegates and 2008’s probable deal with Clinton, Sanders would likely be the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee at this point.

And the story of the superdelegate tends to be told like this:   the one about preventing grassroots candidates from gaining a mainstream party endorsement.  If the GOP had superdelegates Trump would be in the same boat as Sanders.

Sanders is not “grassroots”. 

But Sanders joined the mainstream party after serving many years as a legitimately elected Independent in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.  After many years of consistent messages against Wall Street, against the Middle East wars, and against trickle down economics.

He attempted to honor the establishment system by playing by its rules.  Sort of like Obama when he attempted to work with the republicans in Congress:  the obstruction they both met has been outstanding, coordinated, and unified. 

If a deal was made with Clinton in 2008 one can only conclude that if you are not part of the “deal”, like Sanders, you go against the full power of the unified Democratic establishment.  What Trump has over Bernie is the charisma and money to defy the GOP establishment; he is unfortunately one of the worst choices ever for the high office.  Trump understood exactly what he was going against, and how to beat them. 

And none of those pesky superdelegates, which may be a reason Trump chose the GOP.

Bernie doesn’t have the media savvy of Trump; nor does he have the financial resources.  Yet he’s done well.  He’s motivated young people not unlike Obama in 2008 with sincerity and hope; he’s motivated Independents and progressives with an agenda that plainly supports promoting the needs of the many in this system.  And more importantly, he struck the same chord that Trump strikes:  people who are tired of establishment rhetoric and establishment lip service and non-responsiveness to the real issues they face hear it when candidates talk their language:  dwindling ability to make a living in this economy is a language a majority of Americans, especially middle class now, understand; high healthcare premiums and deductibles is a language working people, especially working family people and working poor understand; high student loan debt is a language many professionals understand; confusing wars in which we are mandated to support our troops, yet we don’t see any progress, only ever evolving “enemies” is a language family members of military personnel and veterans understand.  And domestic violence escalating weekly. 

On a fundamental, i.e. “radical” level, both Sanders and Trump are resonating with people who relate to these issues. 

“Radical” means “fundamental.”

“Socialism” means people sharing more of the benefits of society; and the burdens of society being shared equally by all as well.

Democrats have shown us in 2016 a willingness to honor yesterday’s deal with yesterday’s unchanging candidate.  In reality, and what is feeding the flames of discontent is that what was true in 2008 cannot be true today:   unless a candidate changed with the times and understands what is needed in 2016; unless a candidate used his or her critical thinking skills to help people believe they have representation in this system, then yesterday’s deal cannot address today’s concerns.  Yesterday’s candidate does not reflect the needs of today’s people, some of whom were ten years old when the probable deal was made. 

Obama’s most recent direct discrediting of Sanders’ platform demands by way of publicly endorsing congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an example of the establishment putting its full weight behind Clinton.

The Congressional Black Caucus, all Democrat, followed suite almost immediately.  That only one or two people out of the 535 Senators and representatives in congress support Sanders is no secret.  But when the President throws his weight around, that is the full weight of the party.  Charming; ugly; and implacable.  Is it not plausible that this deal was made by the President back in 2008?  Politics is a game of hard fought compromises, no?

In a tight race (46% of Dems for Sanders at this point; and that doesn’t count all Independents who were excluded from many primaries so the numbers are far from accurate) Clinton has nothing like a mandate.  Then again, neither did Bush in 2004, but that didn’t stop him from calling it a mandate.  Nevertheless the only explanation I can find for the establishment Democrats unified support for Clinton starting with the superdelegate alignment before the primary season even began is that a deal was made in 2008 promising Clinton the full support of the Democratic party in 2016 along with a high profile cabinet position which increased her credibility for her run.

If that’s true, then Hillary needs not be responsive to the people whose votes she wants at all, because the game is already rigged.  Especially if a buffoon is running against her.  That makes it  a great time to get a lot of campaign support from big money donors.  What do you have to lose?  Obama did it?  Great time to donate to the Clinton foundation too.

And all of this could still be OK if Clinton just had a message which resonated with the people.  Even now people would respond to that.  Obama captured that spirit in 2008; but he was not able to follow through with his promise of change fully.  But he captured our imaginations then.  Hillary seems like she would capture the same spirit of change as she, a highly educated lawyer and politician, sees what Americans are rebelling against:  against establishment politics and deals that benefit the few while squeezing the many out of jobs and resources.  Yet she, educated in critical thinking as anyone who attends and completes higher education steadfastly refuses to disclose about remarks she made to Wall Street supporters; cultivates the very establishment money that destroys the environment though fracking and destroyed the US economy by exporting jobs overseas.  And advocates extending a disastrous foreign policy which makes our troops look very dishonorable in the eyes of the world, as well as has us spending Trillions on seemingly never ending wars that tag anyone who is not on board with the US foreign policy a “terrorist; and labels any country not on board with US business policy as in need of regime change.

This is the establishment.  In the end, Obama extended these policies too.  Any establishment politician will.  GOP or Democrat.  Thus, Americans, seeing this and realizing it, cause outsider to do well in 2016.

But again:  Bernie is not an outsider.  He knows the system from being mayor of a large municipality and from serving in Congress as a Representative and Senator for many years.  He understands the influences in Congress.  He is respectful to his colleagues on both sides of the floor usually.  And he is willing to reasonably deal with anyone or at least hear them out.  Sounds like a great representative of the higher ideals of most Americans, right? 

But his point of view does not reflect the ideals of the establishment, nor the ideals of a likely deal made eight years ago to elect the first woman president, no matter what she stood for.

Here’s what I know:  sometimes in nature, the most unlikely of living things thrive.  And the movement Bernie is spearheading is a living thing.