The Smiley Smile Message Board

Have the BBs ever consented to one of their songs being used in political rallies? I know they performed at Bush Sr.'s bday party, but how about actual political events, where a song must be used with permission?

For example, could Trump turn "Summer of Love" into "Summer of Trump" if he wanted to? Would all of BRI have to sign off on that?

Maybe Drumpfin' Safari?

Mutant Trump haters won?

Trumpbone dixie

Denny's Drumpf

Hey little Trumpboy
Sloop Trump B

Summer of Trump, well it's a hair thing... ;D

He's Goin Bald?

"...a muted TRUMPeter swan..."

If only... ;D

Add some Trump to your day

COMMENT:  I don't know about lending a song, but they have lent their presence to President Reagen's rallies before. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xwvOT865c

Then sometimes one of their melodies is used without consent. Here's a Politically Incorrect example: >>> https://safeshare.tv/w/eUqDmyBbir

~swd

Mike singing bass on You're So Good To Me: (La la la la la la) Trump, Trump, Trump... you're my baby oh yeah, don't mean maybe, oh yeah... Trump, Trump, Trump...

I much prefer the "Summer of George."

Love to Say Donald

Trump's in Great Shape

Oh Donald, Nooooo!


Gotta laugh to keep from crying...

f***, f***, f***?

Vega-table?

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

a day in the life of a Trump
let's go Trumpin
Trump a Lug
Im the pied Trumper

She Believes in Trump Again

They played at Reagan's inaugural in 1981.

As a Brit observer, can I just say that anyone who votes for Trump is a complete moron - period.

If my choice is between Trump and Bernie Sanders, then call me Mr. Moron. 

That's like choosing Mike over Brian in terms of artistic credibility IMO.

 8)
I'm with you on this...

In the US, is the word "trump" used by kids instead of "fart" as it is here in the UK?

I love it when Brits think they know what's going on in the US.  ::)

+1

this started out as fun, but it's gonna get nasty aint it?  :smokin

The only candidate with the initials B.S., is also, ironically, the only one of them who isn't actually full of bullsh*t.   

I ain't lookin' fer a fight, so don't come callin' with one - but Bernie's the one for me. 

All Dressed Up for Trump

The Ballad of Ol' Trumpy

Bull Session With Big Donny?

Busy Doin' Trumpin'

Trump don't Tell Me

Hang on to Your Ego. ;)

Can I say as an American that I won't comment on your elections if you won't comment on mine.

As a Brit, I freely admit to not understanding what's going on in the US. Don't understand how it could have happened at all.

Trump/Love 2016!*

*The most LOL-tastic political campaign ever. Also not an endorsement of said campaign.

But hey, we can't do much worse than David Cameron, eh, people of John Bull's Tyranny?

Feel the wind bern through my skin

Once again there's no candidate that I really support, but Bernie is not right for America.

It's O.K.K.K.

Cause he talks sense and has real solutions to the real issues facing the US?

The difference is that American policies affect the world and the people in it in a dramatic way. Therefore most of us outside of the country have a real material stake in the outcome of these elections. Furthermore, a great deal of the world is dominated by American culture so that we have an understanding of the country's politics in a way that people inside that US don't have about other countries. I don't live in the United States but by the time I was 10 I had the names of every American president memorized in chronological order. As an adult, could you name every Canadian prime minster in chronological order?

My favorite parlor game is engaging wide eyed simpletons when they say..."but he's a SOCIALIST! A SOCIALIST!"
To which I reply..."Yeah, and those social security benefits you receive are socialist. And so is that Medicare that covers 80% of your doctor's bill, grandpappy."

To which they just go..."ahhhh...but he's a SOCIALIST!"

If Trump is elected, I give it a year. Then he'll quit after he realizes he doesn't have the arbitrary sort of power he's used to. So the real question is, who's his running mate?

And you're assuming he's incapable of lying?  Just like a number of folks bought Obama's BS?

Maybe this should be sandboxed.

They all could be lying. Are you proposing not voting for anyone?

Good thing they instated that new mod who hasn't been here for a month, right? I'm sure he'll move this thread to where it belongs.

To be fair, both he and Sanders would probably end up in the same position. The latter arguably would face greater pushback in Congress.

Yes, they could.  This election seems to be quite the crap shoot.

But I mean that anybody running in any election could be lying.

He's like Trump in that he says what a lot of people want to hear, but very little of what he says will actually get done.  Most of his support is coming from college aged kids who hear free tuition, so they want to vote for him.  Although as it turns out they're not showing up at the polls anyway.

‍

Completely agreed. There's only one person I've ever met who wants Trump to win - and that's only so he could laugh at America and ridicule them for choosing a man who is gravely unfit to be the U.S. President. Like Dubya Part II. For me at least, the whole Trump BS is now far beyond a joke, and the prospect of a Trump Presidency worries me to the core about the potential ramifications not only for the U.S., but also globally. I confidently and firmly believe that Bernie Sanders is the only decent candidate, and I'm sure there would be a great sigh of relief and celebration when he enters the White House!

Comparing Bernie Sanders to Brian Wilson, even in an exaggerated analogy is downright laughable. 

Let's face it, every candidate is full of sh*t.  The only one that I think really had any credibility was Ben Carson (even if his religious beliefs rubbed me the wrong way) , and he just dropped out. 

It's interesting that in, say, the 1930s or 1940s America or indeed just about most places in the developed world now, Bernie Sanders would be considered to be a moderate. But because the left in the US has been disenfranchised, marginalized, silenced, and essentially barred from political power, Sanders gets called (and even wrongly calls himself!) a socialist. In fact, he merely represents the policies that were espoused by New Deal Democrats - policies that largely prevented disaster in the country, created a middle class, and established a system of historically unparalleled development. I'm not saying there weren't a lot of things wrong with it but that's what it was and in those days the New Deal Democrats were challenged by an actual leftist movement, with whose ideologies Bernie Sanders has very little in common.

CSM - you have a very nuanced break-down of the ideology.  Bravo.

But, I think this election cycle, both Sanders and Trump are tapping into this general frustration and rage, that Americans feel with their government being unresponsive to what the people want.  And the double standard for enforcement of laws against government officials.  They are tired of the good-old-boys (and girls) networks and it has been building for the last number of years.  And these are both what I would consider grass-roots candidacies. 

The GOP is in a melt-down mode, some claiming they will vote Democrat before they will vote for Trump.

I agree with a great deal of this. The only point that I might depart from is your assertion that both Sanders and Trump are grass-roots candidacies. Sanders, while representing a good amount of grass-roots concerns, has been part of the political class for about 25 years. Trump, while not a career politician, was born into a life of luxury and has spent a good amount of his adult life as a member of the country's elite ownership class and he, therefore, espouses the same values and ideologies of most members of the political class. I think that the GOP opposes him not so much because he differs from them but, rather, because he could ultimately destroy the party.

In a genuinely democratic system you would see people like farmers and labour organizers running for President and having the capacity to win elections.

CSM - by "grass roots" I mean those who are disenfranchised within their own parties who are looking, outside their party affiliations to find a candidate, who is more in line with personal ideology.  And the attempt to create a new political model from the "grassroots up."  

Trump, in self-funding is creating a new model, that is unheard of and which has created fear for mainstream lobbying hacks and PACS, is more like a purge.   And for Sanders, as well with the Demmies.

The grassroots thing has nothing to do with born into relative wealth.  It is more the bottom-up movement for change for responsiveness in government. Even if it is funded from the top-down, it resonates with citizens who feel ignored by government.

But, I am getting very annoyed with this education-shaming being attributed to Trump supporters. It is just a distractor and a mistake.  Even persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media.  Everyone learns differently and it is offensive.      ;)

Okay, care to explain why Sanders - a man who has always been consistent with his views - is full of sh*t?

The whole angry vibe around trump's campaign against non-supporters is most concerning. Plus what little has leaked about actual policy is far right big government plans.

I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before except for when you call it a "bottom-up movement." But surely Trump does not come from the bottom since he resides amongst the top tier of society, even higher up than most politicians. As a top-tier member of the ownership class, Trump, in fact, represents the class of society who have really been in power over the last five decades or so. So if people are upset about American life right now, and they should be, they should be aiming their criticisms far more towards people like Trump. It's a true testament to the power of propaganda that people feel that the ownership class (they people who have already been structuring society for decades) can get us out of the mess that we are in.

I agree with your point that "persons with low literacy level can become quite informed by listening to and watching varied media" just as I believe that many people regardless of their literacy level can become grossly misinformed by listening to and watching varied media.

He supports government handouts and the anti police BLM movement. 

I know I shouldn't voice my political views in the Sandbox as my views tend to lean more to the right than to the left. 

Trump is part of the problem, just he is try to run for president instead of buying one this time....

Personally I'm glad he supports the BLM movement. But apart from that, wouldn't you say that rather than supporting government handouts that he is supporting policies that address the inherent inequalities in an unfettered capitalist system?


I don't see why. Many people in the Sandbox express right-wing views.

Exactly what I was thinking. He's effectively cutting out the middle man.

CSM - It is the "bottom-up" and the "unscripted" (never mind unfiltered) by the now-requisite PR firms that are running politics.  This came about in the late 80s when PR firms carved out a niche market in politics.  Trump is not reading a speech.  I noticed he is dialing-it-back from the Super Tuesday speech the other night.

So, for the last 30 or so years candidates are PR-mangaged rather than emanating from what was known as "the kitchen cabinet" in politics, generally very close friends or family who would manage campaigns (who else would put in that time for nothing?)

It is more the nature of being unscripted or belonging to a political-class.  And, yes, often those who have numerous degrees are the ones who don't get it.

But it is changing the political landscape and I have never seen an election cycle with more participation.  The voter turnouts are getting very high, after years of apathy. That cannot be a bad thing,  ;)  

Yes, I'm sure Sanders will go in and correct up the inequities of Capitalism.  

The BLM movement should receive zero support.  This is the same movement that caused millions in property damage in Baltimore last Spring.  Rather than fight racism, they fan the flames.  They support thugs like Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  And they're anti-police.  

No candidate that shows even the smallest amount of support for this movement will ever get my vote, be they Republican, Democrat, or etc.  


  

The BLM movement is a consequence of the constant unlawful killings committed by the police, particularly towards African-Americans. That to me is indefensible, at least when there's overwhelming proof that the cops killed someone out of hand

I agree with you completely that PR has played an insidious role in American politics over the last 30 years or so. But that's largely because the President is mostly a product that is being sold by the elite members of the ownership class. The PR issue is merely part of a larger problem which is that American life is being controlled by an extraordinarily small but powerful slice of the population. Trump does not change that at all - he exemplifies it. The fact that he is running his own PR campaign is not surprising. Like I said above, he's effectively cutting out the middle man.

Unfortunately no President alone could correct the inequalities of capitalism. That being said, there are plenty of ways to ease up some of the inequalities - it has been done plenty of times quite successfully.


I don't support rioting and violence no matter who is carrying it out. That said, if you actively and purposefully repress a particular segment of the population, often by coercive violence, it's going to have results like that. You can't keep someone's neck under your boot for decades and then cry foul when they start punching at your legs.

These people don't want an end to racism any more than conservatives want an end to abortion. How could they continue receiving political points if their whole reason to exist is predicated on a boogeyman?

If people really wanted racism to end they'd stop talking about it. Racism is not based in any scientific fact. And good on the ol' BLM losers for making one of the more racially tolerant generations (millennials) question their own tolerance. BLM are agent provocateurs, not civil rights activists. Black Americans already have civil rights; white criminals don't speak for white Americans, therefore black criminals shouldn't speak for black Americans. Sometimes a black guy committing a crime is just that - a black guy committing a crime. There's nothing to overcome anymore. They're "equal" under the law. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of results - the sooner people who can't see past the color of their own skin realize that, maybe they'll stop disrupting productive Western society and become productive themselves. Fat chance, but racists of all colors were never known for their determination beyond their desire to blame others for their own failures.

There were many years were there was very little open discussion about racism: the age of rampant racism. The only reason why we are a more tolerant generation is thanks to dutiful efforts by activists who brought these issues to the forefront and that involved a tremendous amount of communication. I have no doubt that many racists or misogynists or what-have-you from days-gone-by would have expressed the sentiment that things would have been much better if these up-starts just kept silent. The difference now though is you have a whole generation of people who are unaware of the tremendous effort it took to get to the stage that we are at now and therefore unknowingly offer as a solution the kind of society that kept these social groups disenfranchised in the first place.


The difference is that America is actively invested in creating black criminals in a way that they are not invested in creating white criminals. So the analogy doesn't hold, in my opinion.

I've not seen such proof that the police acted unlawfully in most of these cases. 

TRBB, I'm trying to figure out what you actually consider to be reality. Do you think that if people stopped talking about racism it would cease to exist? If so, do you think it was initially caused by people talking about it?
History is full of groups of people depicting other groups of people in dehumanizing ways, and it's very easy to see why: it's a lot easier to war against an enemy that you don't have empathy for. So whether it's Irish v. English, Germans v. Poles, US v. USSR, US v. Japan and on and on... there's a link of the tendency of humans to point out the good qualities of themselves and highlight the bad of the "other" whatever the other may be. And I think a lot of racism falls into this category of thinking. And I hear humans doing it in one form or another virtually every day.
I can't imagine how one could believe eradicating it is as simple as not discussing it.

CSM -  The thing that is not being looked at is the non-obvious.  The PR are the feeder system for the lobbyists.  So, from the bottom up of the campaign, there is the middle man who is also the gateway to the inbred kind of corruption that comes with this industry. The system has gone from lobbyists having to ingratiate themselves with the elected officials and work-for-access, to one, where via the PR sphere, it is part of the electoral process, because it is sort of a crossover industry.  

The PR people are the ones who run the ground-game, instead of the mostly volunteer model that did the hiring ad hoc of media ads, and learning the process as part of being a candidate.  There is a "middle man" (doing the PR and event coordination) for sure, with Trump but it is less obvious and more like the old-style ground game of getting out the vote, and local stand-out events, and local debates.  

If nothing else comes from this purge with both major parties, cutting some of this PR stuff out would be a major benefit in my book.  People are sick and tired of a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people.   ;)      

I agree with a lot of that. All I will add is that I think the most significant problem is that everything is being controlled by a small elite percentage of the population, including what happens in the political sphere. The issues that you mention are indeed part of that but they are part of this much larger problem. With that in mind, Trump perpetuates this problem. While I agree that people are sick not only of "a PR packaged-script that represents the special interests and not the will of the people" but of a whole system that represents special interests (in this case, the interests of the small elite sectors of society), I would also say that Trump is precisely the sort of candidate who represents these special interests. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard Trump say anything all that different from what now constitutes mainstream political thought. Maybe he says it in a way that's a bit more entertaining and therefore people like it more. But for the most part he's just echoing status quo opinion.

CSM - I have little knowledge of whatever holdings Trump has. I can't count his money. But, I tend to think of whatever he has as sort of a diversified, live portfolio such as real estate or industry where there are brick and mortar business and not virtual "bit coin" type industries or at least those that voters can identify with. People go to Trump hotels on vacation, or buy income property to collect rents as an investment.  They might stay in a Trump property so they have a frame of reference. They can see that he employed builders, hotel administrators, chefs, housekeeping, drivers, etc. 

That said, Trump is tapping into "visuals" from the media that are universal, by now.  One biggie is "the fence" - and Americans have that as a twofer. 

First, is the obvious porosity of the US border and the argument that "a country to be identified as such requires borders," in the same way that people who own a house, also have a plot plan of their land.  They can transfer what they know about property ownership to the land mass that is the United States. That resonates with citizen/voters.  There is no ideology learning curve.  Trump is speaking their language.

Second, is the second media visual of "drug tunnels" which have permitted the transport of substances that has taken the lives of millions. No one needs a 101 on that. That is the second border issue.  He has tapped into that feeling of being violated, in the same way they might feel with a home-invasion.   

So, the table has been set for Trump to jump right in and connect the dots to these visceral emotions of voters in a way that transcends any kind of propaganda that is scripted by the PR firms. 

Trump has tapped into rage in the same way that Sanders has, with similar fiscal visuals of banks being bailed out, while citizen/voter's friends have lost their homes, without being bailed out. Everyone knows someone who lost their home due to foreclosure.  Voters don't want to hear ideology.  They are sick of it. He yells about it in the same way a frustrated citizenry yells when they know they are powerless against both porous borders/drug infiltration and banks who were able to re-organize, while others became homeless. 

The third issue for Trump is the whole VA crisis, where it is common knowledge that vets have died, waiting for appointments in the VA system, created to care for them, and offers the solution of a medical card for Vets that has to be accepted anywhere.  People get that and don't need a roadmap. 

The top-heavy politically connected administration of the VA, is freaking out because they have been on a gravy-train for decades and don't want to lose their sinecure.  Sanders and Trump are articulating (even if polar opposite in liberal-conservative positions) many issues which have gotten under the skin of the American citizens and which has reached the boiling-over point.   ;)

Where you see Trump (whom I do not see as being conservative) as tapping into rage as Sanders has, I see him exploiting it. The American population is a heavily propagandized one. 90% of the mainstream media that people see is controlled by six corporations and much of that mainstream information gets filtered into non-mainstream sources to the extent that the internet now is largely a junkyard of misinformation that has been gleaned from the central propaganda systems. Trump, along with most of the other mainstream political figures, tap into this atmosphere quite nicely.

As far as the issue of Mexico and the VA scandal goes, Trump is entirely aligned with the GOP on this. Again, he may talk about these issues differently but what he says is pure status quo.

Let's look at one of these issues though: Mexico. In the case of Mexico, the United States has for quite some time been participating in policies that are directly leading to the destruction and impoverishment of the country. The largely US imposed NAFTA programs worked to destroy Mexican agriculture, imposed a profit-driven corporate model on the country which directly led to the destruction of Mexican industry, exploitative lower wages for workers (jobs were created but were much cheaper) and the destruction of the labour movement there. The implementation of these programs is precisely what led to the migration of Mexicans to the United States, which began just as these policies were beginning to take effect. And furthermore, it is worth noting that because of lax American gun laws, roughly 70% of weapons used by Mexican drug cartels are U.S. and so the U.S. is largely empowering that system as well.

Now if there anything resembling real journalism in the US and if there was solid access to information even outside the mainstream press, this particular narrative that I've just described would be crucial in considering the issue of Mexican migration. There is, in fact, an easy way to end the issue: stop exploiting Mexico and end the destructive policies that are impoverishing the country. To his credit, Trump has talked about dismantling NAFTA but gives no real indication that he's interesting in repairing what has happened to Mexico as a result of these policies. But I do think that Trump, along with most other mainstream politicians, does take advantage of a mostly misinformed public when it comes to this particular issue. Yes, people are angry about things and rightly so but it does no good to perpetuate a false narrative that gives people the wrong impression as to who or what they should be directed their anger towards.

CSM - I know less about NAFTA than you.  What I do know is that there are both Mexicans and Canadians who border-cross with permission, to work every day in the US as commuters.
 
What is problematic is the wholesale unchecked border crossing, flowing into the US.  One of the cornerstones of US immigration is the concept of "admitting and inspecting" and so, as in my grandparents cases, they came through Ellis Island, were quarantined, until cleared for health purposes, have papers processed, and were free to begin their lives.  It was a process of accounting for those who came into the country.  Some sections in Mexico are extremely dangerous.  A young woman mayor was assassinated on the first day of office, not even a month ago.  I cannot speak to the economic issues, but am shocked at the violence connected to the cartels infiltrating the US.  

Health is a big issue. Zika is becoming a huge problem coming through South and Central America.  What is also problematic are convicted felons who have been deported and return to what are called "sanctuary cities" to escape prosecution.  I know of no country that would permit people to just decide to move to a new one, unchecked by any government authority.  The US is very generous but we are in debt and cannot afford that much longer.  

The VA health care positions of the candidates are interesting ones.  Trump is one who is advocating providing insurance cards to all veterans whereby they could access medical care at hospitals of their choosing. I can get onboard with that position.  That is not a GOP position.  That is not a Democrat position.  Both parties are vested in the keeping the unacceptable status quo. This would permit vets to access better levels of care, and not be "warehoused" in a VA hospital without care.  One of my parents died in the VA system.  You can rest assured that few elected officials would choose medical care at a VA facility.

If mainstream candidates who go-along-to-get along are elected it will be the same-old-same-old.  The country needs to be shaken up.  Only new people in power who have no or few ties to the old structure of power will be able to do that without push-back from lobbyists or powerful groups.  

Both Sanders and Trump are effectively tapping into the collective rage of the US.  Trump is a capitalist, first.  At some point, he was allied to the Democrats.  People change parties all the time, to run for office or move to establish residency to qualify to run for office.  Bernie calls himself a socialist.  Some find that troubling.  

The US cannot fix everyone's problems or fight everyone's battles.   JMHO  ;)
      

Well, I suppose it's a matter of debate but I don't think that Trump's plan puts him significantly out of place within the status quo. According to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Trump "has not laid out specific policies" when dealing with what they consider to be "the most pressing issues facing veterans." Trump's plans though to “fire the corrupt and incompetent VA executives that let our veterans down,” aligns him precisely with Ted Cruz who "co-sponsored legislation to make it easier to fire VA senior management for mismanagement and performance failures."

In my previous post, I never suggested that the US should fix everyone's problems or fight everyone's battles. Instead, I suggested that the US should stop actively participating in the destruction and impoverishment of Mexico. This is not calling on the country to fix everyone's problems but instead is calling on the country to stop actively causing these problems. Like I said, the massive migration from Mexico occurred as NAFTA policies were instituted in the country and were having their effect. As long as this crucial element of the story is kept from the discussion, any discussion of fixing the so-called problem of migration is an insincere one. The rage that you speak of in this case is directed towards the wrong target, largely because the real issues have been silenced. As far as I can tell, Trump has only served to perpetuate the confusion on this issue, though I do credit him for calling for the end of NAFTA something that unsurprisingly has raised the ire of many, as witnessed by the Wall Street Journal's response.

As for the troubling nature of Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist, I find it troubling myself because he isn't one.

CSM - The migration thing is not just Mexico.  It is the migration from Central America as well.  So, the issues are larger than just economic injustice.  Many are political refugees, and some from the Middle East using the open border to gain access to the US.

The vet's first issue is extreme health care coming back from war.  They have many issues that regular health care is ill abled to deal with never mind the VA which is still in the dark ages.  That prospect of a health care insurance card would open the door to at least equal health care for returning vets.  The health care system is spread out over large geographic regions which restricts family visitation as well as distance to travel that is unacceptable.  Trump is the first to address that in that way.  Trump does need to sit down and work out his positions on various aspects of not just the VA, but also ramp up his positions and plans for how he will address the myriad of problems any one of them who is elected will face.   The lineup of candidates is down to 4 so the heat is on for his advisors to sit with him and come up with what will be a strategy that is doable and not just political rhetoric.

NAFTA has been around since Bill Clinton in 1994 even if it started with Bush 1.   The draft was initialed in 1992 when Bush was in office as a lame duck, but finalized under Clinton, after he was in office for a year. "NAFTA means jobs.  American jobs, and good-paying American jobs.  If I did not believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." (Bill Clinton) It eliminated tariffs on a half of Mexican imports and a third of US to Mexico exports.  There does seem to be some side agreement on the environment.  (I have little idea what that means and don't believe a word of this industry-driven climate change policy.)  It was reported that a lot of plants from the US moved to Mexico which does not translate to US jobs but i was not an economics major.

There seems to be a decrease in corn farmer incomes.  Corn, in general has decreased because of the high fructose corn syrup controversy for nutritional reasons. It is in virtually every food, and people want it eliminated for health reasons. The agricultural subsidies in general, in the US need to be looked at.  I hope that happens regardless of who is in office next year.

Bernie calls himself a socialist.  Do you think his ideology fits better with another political classification?    ;)   

Unfortunately, the US's destructive policies have probably been even more severe throughout Central America than they have in Mexico which have been terrible enough. This includes supporting terrorist campaigns or outright carrying out terrorism in countries like Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, all leading targets of US intervention. So similarly repairing these countries that have been devastated as a result of these policies could go a long way in alleviating these concerns.

To repeat, when you are talking about the vet's important issues, I was quoting the conclusions reached by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America who concluded that Trump "has not laid out specific policies" when dealing with what they consider to be "the most pressing issues facing veterans."

Yes, Bernie incorrectly calls himself a socialist. He's a pretty conventional moderate liberal. I addressed this issue above. You responded to that particular post by saying it was a "nuanced break-down of the ideology."

CSM - A lot of these corporations are multi-national in nature.  Few of the larger ones, are not even US-owned but many are offshore or designated elsewhere to avoid taxes.  The US has these companies beyond their reach so I am unclear as to how policies can be forced upon those once US-owned corporations but who have outsourced a lot of their work so they cannot be under the jurisdiction of the US.  

The vets issues, I am pretty familiar with with knowing many of these vets (regardless of a position of the group you mention) and their first gripe is the VA.  If your body is in need, nothing else matters. Policy starts with basic needs. The quality of the care and ready-access is first.  

Some travel out-of-state for care.  That is unacceptable.  Not getting a timely appointment is unacceptable.  And many of the docs are working at the VA for school loan-forgiveness for medical school and are not in that specialty of caring for the very specific physical and emotional needs of returning vets.  It is medical care, first, alright and so far, Trump has taken the bull by the horns.   They should be cared for on the taxpayers dime and at a level equal to the care the congress members get.  No questions asked.  

Trump, as I suggested earlier, needs to sit down with his advisors and map out their strategies and policies so that he is ready to answer these hard questions when asked.  The GOP is flipping out over someone they laughed at six months ago, (Trump) looking for a brokered convention.  The "party is ov-a."  

And the Democrats are doing no better with Clinton's  IT guy getting immunity looking to do the same thing to screw Bernie out of the nomination.  Judge Andrew Napolitano explained last night, that if someone is getting an immunity deal, then there is a sitting grand jury, assessing evidence already.  So, this nonsense of Loretta Lynch saying she cannot comment, as to whether there is a grand jury investigation, as part of the political stonewalling, is just that, nonsense.      ;)  

I didn't mention specific corporations so I'm not entirely sure what you mean in that paragraph. That said, NAFTA did make it easier for corporations to do things like outsource labor. The whole program is meant to increase profit to corporation owners at the expense of labour. The effects of it have been bad everywhere but they have been particularly devastating in Mexico and the US does have power over whether or not these policies continue.

As for the vet issue, again, I am drawing from the conclusions reached by a veterans organization rather than anecdotal evidence. People can decide for themselves what evidence is more convincing. I'm not suggesting that they don't believe the VA issue is important or even one of the most important issues. It's simply that solutions that Trump offers are not specific enough nor are they believed to be effectively solving the right problems.

CSM - just as an example, I will use Comcast, who is NBC (National Broadcasting) and General Electric.  They are a multi-corps that are connected both media and industry.  As far as labor, much of that has to do with whatever trade unions are involved.  I don't think Comcast is union, at least in the US.  Clinton (Hillary is alleging that she spoke out against NAFTA but her hubby signed off.) (That was on Huffington Post.) (Contrary to that, is ABC's coverage where she is said to have supported it.) It is hard to know all the effects, or how the treaty as applied in Mexico, but what is stopping the leaders of the three nations to sit down and perhaps modify or even call for revocation of the treaty? That has to come from the leaders of all the countries involved.         
 
When the vets talk, I listen.  Most don't choose the VA if they have an option and pay for outside insurance for better care if they are able. Many are not able and are at the mercy of the VA.  It is that ability to use a universal medical card for insurance coverage anywhere that makes the difference in what can get them to return "whole" in society to make them productive.  I know scores of vets through my kids and as former students.  It is their chief complaint. That is just basic and essential and the govt. has failed them badly. 

There are also vets who have had to pay for their own protective gear to be in combat.  That is an outrage, while all these bureaucrats who work in this area of veterans affairs, are counting paper clips.  A lot of these agencies need to be reviewed to assess whether they are doing their jobs, in a non-political fashion.    ;)

What is stopping the three leaders is that they are, for the most part, always representatives of the elite sectors of the society who stand to benefit from these policies at the expense of the population. That we are forced to rely on these leaders to change anything is pretty good evidence of how democracy is severely malfunctioning in North America. Incidentally, a crucial part of NAFTA is that it worked to break down and undermine trade unions. I don't agree that it is "hard to know all the effects, or how the treaty as applied in Mexico." These things have been quite conclusively documented and studied. I'm confused as to why you bring up Clinton.

Clinton is an issue because she is a Presidential candidate, and because she has been shown to have 2 positions on NAFTA.  An election year is the perfect time to both raise the issue and to cause sunlight to fall upon it.  Clinton is getting big union support so it is a huge issue and what you have said about union busting runs contrary to the support she is getting now.

Facebook pages or twitter accounts that are targeted to address the issues might be a good way to harness media on the issue to raise awareness.  Studies can be linked and either validated or debunked and this is exactly the year to raise them.   

Clinton has talked about pulling out of NAFTA but, as far as I'm concerned, I don't find the reasoning to be particularly convincing. The argument from the Democrats tend to be, "NAFTA hasn't been good for America so we will pull out." This ignores the fact that NAFTA has been devastating to Mexico and that the whole purpose of NAFTA was mostly to reform the Mexican economy so that it was friendly to American investment. Now that the money has been made and Mexico has been devastated, it is not a question of whether or not NAFTA should be terminated simply because of how well America is faring, though NAFTA's problematic impact on American jobs alone is bad enough.

To be honest, if it came down to Clinton and Trump, it would be a no-brainer for the labour unions to support Clinton, as it would for any working person. Republican policies like the kind that Trump is in favour of enacting (insofar as he has any clear policies) inevitably lead to the usual increase in levels of public debt.

CSM - Political people can always craft a defense or pretext to repeal something. I was always under the impression that NAFTA was to benefit the 3 countries involved.  People usually enact legislation or treaties for mutual or benefit between or among countries.   

Absent repeal of NAFTA, or with the possible repeal, what do you think could be a solution? 

Just thought I'd add, regarding Central America, CAFTA. And United Fruit. And the occupation in the 1930s.

Absolutely.

Emily - "Going forward" and using the leverage of the impending election, is there a beneficial solution that can be realized?  ;)

Initially, great efforts were made by the three countries to pass the the law without the populations being aware of it happening. Policies, when they are crafted by elite members of society, do not work to benefit that society, but to instead benefit the elite sectors that are crafting those policies in the first place. Obviously the elite figures in Mexico who were signing on NAFTA were only too happy with a policy designed largely for the purposes of making Mexico more open to American investment since that tends to lead to profits for elite sectors of the penetrated countries as well even as the countries plunge into poverty. Those have historically been the consequences of US policies in Central America, Haiti, South Korea, etc.

A real solution would be to recognize that borders are by their nature illegitimate acts created by power centres, imposed arbitrarily and unnaturally and without any care about people and their culture, and are achieved and maintained only through violence and coercion. But in the meantime, repealing NAFTA and paying Mexico enormous reparations with the profits that were achieved through the exploitation of the country, would be a start. Then, once  that's done, there can be an actual discussion of a free and fair trade system, rather than a system designed to increase profits at the expense of labour.

A complete overhaul of our labor policies and corporate welfare system, plus recognition of the autonomy of other countries and acting on the world stage as a member, not a dictator, would be good. Repealing NAFTA and CAFTA would be essential. Discontinuing our selfish, frankly a**holish attitude to the refugees from the economic (and health) devastation we've wreaked in other countries would be a start.
The US started with actual slaves and indentured servants and we still haven't gotten over our addiction to slave-wage labor. We've just moved it around.

I like what you said about borders. I've always found it ironic that 'free world' governments exert control over where people can live and work.
If that were to happen, much of my above post would be rendered moot.

The world is what it is.  It is not the time to lament the old colonial empires unjust manner of land-conquest.  Right now is a prime-time opportunity to make use of the election cycle to raise these issues to become a greater part of the discussion or create a dedicated Twitter site or Facebook page to raise awareness. 

Or, set up a network, draft a position paper, and send it to the major candidates political directors, with the others all on "copy" as well as notables, such as senators and congress members and organizations, who have an interest in these issues, to engage a higher level of dialog and make it part of the election cycle.  Then follow up with media.

It is time, paper, postage and follow-up phone calls to the respective parties.

We can talk about this until the cow-jumps-over-the-moon but action.  Talk is cheap.  Activists act.   

There is no time like the present.    ;)

I don't think anyone was referring to anything but present day circumstances. I've worked on many campaigns, so appreciate that practical action is appropriate, though most often depressingly ineffective against ground-up brain washing.

Yes, as Emily said above, I was referring to present day circumstances.

Emily - while activism is time-intensive and labor-intensive it is one of the few effective ways of combatting any issue whether a social issue or environmental issue.  Your barometer is how the "other side" fights, to know how successful you are becoming.  And the time is ripe to raise these issues.  This year IS the grassroots non-conventional year to get a message out that you think is important.  

And, if you are the leader (or one of those who are like-minded) of the movement; you get to control it's path.  You might not win on the first round, but you will, if you get the message out there and keep it out there.   ;)

In my opinion, though, there should not be a leader of grassroots movements who control its path.

CSM - absent leaders or a core group of concerned citizens, who know how to get a message out, there is no movement.

Someone/ or a core group needs to be at the helm to mobilize and organize.

Who you gonna call?  :lol

Even unions has a leaders. They started as grass-roots.

If they are going to be successful, grassroots movements need to be fully democratic in their structure. There should not be one person leading the way. Rather, there needs to be a constant mutual exchange of ideas. It's only because we are indoctrinated into thinking that we need to be led that we think that all movements require leaders. As far as I'm concerned, if we are to break away from ruling ideologies, we need to reconceive the way that people can organize.

Unions have leaders but good union leaders do not and should not control the path of the union.

CSM - As a practical matter, once the issues are worked out, someone/s will always emerge as a leader, regardless of how "democratic" the structure is or is not.

Someone has to be the spokesperson. I have been involved as a union member for several decades and also involved with matters that can become union-connected but not union-managed. Unions and their leaders can be influenced by the government, so they are not perfect.

The most expeditious way to some issue-raising is just plowing ahead with a position paper or some website to get the issue out there to see if there is interest sufficient to sustain an organization and movement.  Building a network is hard work and after the "democratic" crowd leaves, there are often, only a few who are willing to do the actual work required.   

This year, time is of the essence.     

I think, by definition, grass-roots movements do not have 'a leader'. I also think unions are not grass-roots movements. I think that in this conversation, the term 'grass-roots movement' has been co-opted to mean 'organized campaign.'

It is quite simply untrue that "someone will always emerge as a leader" - from the leaderless revolution in Catalonia Spain in the 1930s, to the Kibbutz movements in Israel, to many successful workers co-operative movements around there world, there are plenty of examples of extraordinarily successful collective movements that are not ruled.

Chomsky is instructive on this topic, particularly when discussing Martin Luther King (forgive the fact that the transcription appears to be verbatim and thus grammatically incorrect in spots):

Well, you know, it’s kind of inevitable in a celebrity run culture that people will be picked out and identified as leaders, but yeah, it’s a negative factor. I’m sure the Berrigans [Dan and Phil] would have been the first to say that, there’s nothing special about them, they’re doing these things because others are making it possible. I mean if you think about, say, the Civil Rights movement, what mainly comes to mind is Martin Luther King. Who was a person of great significance undoubtedly, but, again, I presume, he would have been the first to say, that he’s able to lead demonstrations and give speeches because SNCC workers are riding freedom buses, and sitting-in on lunch counters, and facing violence everyday of the week and they’re organizing activities. Mass popular movements will sometimes, somebody will show up, to appear to be a leader. It’s dangerous, and very often, the leader’s cynical, and is using it to gain power, and to crush the ideals of the mass movement. It’s what Lenin was doing in 1917 for example. But, sometimes it’s authentic, like Civil Rights movement, or the Berrigans. But it shouldn’t be emphasized. The apparent leadership is riding a wave of popular activism.

--

Chomsky's point here is a fascinating one and I think essentially correct: that mobilized activist communities do not come about because of leaders, but, rather, that leaders can be produced by mobilized activist communities. But that's merely an effect of the culture we live in and as Chomsky points out, it is an unnecessary effect since the real work is being done by the collectives, and further more, it's a mostly "negative" effect since it reinforces values that these collectives are usually appropriately against.

There is simply no historical evidence to suggest that collectives cannot function without leaders, and that genuine progress can't take place without leaders and furthermore, simply as a matter of principle, we should be striving for purely democratic collective action if that's the kind of society we hope to ultimately create because we won't create it if we don't strive for that.

Exactly! See my comment in Reply #56: "I think you may be using a definition of grassroots that I have never encountered before"

CSM - while leaders may "emerge or be produced" (as you cited Chomsky,)from a movement, it is more efficacious to have someone who has some organizational background to bring a movement to fruition, and get the issues out there.  And, for good or bad, it is why the PR firms have been effective in managing campaigns who have no effective leader and organizational ground-game at the ready.  With no ground-game, or way to reach masses, nothing goes anywhere.

Emily - ever read Germinal by Emile Zola?  Or see the movie? 

The point is that leaders do not bring movements to fruition; movements are already at fruition by the time a leader emerges. This is why leaders are at best superfluous and at worse a negative influence on a movement.

As far as your point about nothing going anywhere, I cited several historical and contemporary examples that prove that point false.

I have read everything by Zola, yes.

Emily - Bravo - And, I have not read all of Zola, but Germinal, for me, marks the beginning of unions. 

Semantics, (for organization) aside, this is an excellent year to move an issue into the media via the election.    ;)

CSM - I am quite familiar with the Berrigan brothers.  Priests are, very well-educated, articulate, generally well-written, and, know how to network (even in the 60's) and having a name out there, renders a movement capable of having contact sources to become involved and expand membership. 

And, I believe in visionary leadership, where a core group can be held accountable to it's membership, and who have the resources and ability to both get the message out, and motivate whatever movement they are involved in.  I guess it is the formula about which we might not agree.  The bottom line for me is, first to have an issue that needs resolution and someone who has the vision, determination, and the ability to engage large numbers of people to get the job done.  If it is only one issue, then the group would theoretically disband, once that goal is achieved. More of an ad hoc organization and not a permanent organization. 

Organizing for any cause, whether for political issues, or charity, requires a specific skill set in my opinion.   ;)

I agree that this is a good year to push for adjustments that would be acceptable within the margins of the current system and I'm always active within the campaigns for the tweaks I support. For more significant change we have to wait until the current system breaks down a bit further. In the meantime, just talking about it as much as possible may prompt some people to rethink the foundations. When the time is ripe for significant change, hopefully (though I've gotten quite cynical on this) enough people will have come to agree that our corporate oligarchy is the real problem.

I agree that effective organizations are effective. My issue arises where you say "motivate". One person's 'motivating' is another person's 'manipulating'. I think there is too much 'motivating' by 'leaders' who are actually manipulating people to support what benefits the 'leader' or the 'leader's' vision. I'd want the people in a movement to be motivated strictly by their own understanding.

Emily - I think the best organization is an ad hoc one to handle one issue.  Then, there is less of a power play.  Motivation or manipulation?  It is a matter of getting the word out and the job done.  If people acquire good leadership and organizational skills, they are transferrable to another project down the line.  ;)