-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 21, 2019, 07:00:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Summer of Trump
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Summer of Trump  (Read 12240 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2016, 02:40:23 PM »

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  Wink
      

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.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: March 05, 2016, 05:22:02 AM »

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  Wink
      

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?    Wink   
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2016, 05:47:03 AM »

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?    Wink    

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."
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 06:13:17 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2016, 06:17:53 AM »

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?    Wink    

Unfortunately, the US's destructive policies have probably been even more severe throughout Central American 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.      Wink  
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: March 05, 2016, 06:34:38 AM »

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.      Wink  

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.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 07:49:08 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: March 06, 2016, 07:06:51 AM »

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.      Wink  

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.    Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: March 06, 2016, 08:51:43 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 08:52:56 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: March 06, 2016, 09:08:16 AM »

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.   
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: March 06, 2016, 10:31:29 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 10:34:48 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: March 06, 2016, 11:12:42 AM »

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? 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: March 06, 2016, 11:35:57 AM »

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


Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: March 06, 2016, 12:02:04 PM »

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

Absolutely.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: March 06, 2016, 12:03:08 PM »

Just thought I'd add, regarding Central America, CAFTA. And United Fruit. And the occupation in the 1930s.
Emily - "Going forward" and using the leverage of the impending election, is there a beneficial solution that can be realized?  Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: March 06, 2016, 12:10:36 PM »

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?  

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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2016, 12:14:12 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: March 06, 2016, 12:18:33 PM »

Just thought I'd add, regarding Central America, CAFTA. And United Fruit. And the occupation in the 1930s.
Emily - "Going forward" and using the leverage of the impending election, is there a beneficial solution that can be realized?  Wink
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.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: March 06, 2016, 12:23:44 PM »

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?  

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.
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.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: March 07, 2016, 06:14:28 AM »

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?  

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.
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.    Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: March 07, 2016, 06:23:43 AM »

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?  

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.
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.    Wink
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.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: March 07, 2016, 06:29:00 AM »

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?  

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.
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.    Wink

Yes, as Emily said above, I was referring to present day circumstances.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 06:30:06 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: March 07, 2016, 06:30:14 AM »

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?  

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.
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.    Wink
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.
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.   Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: March 07, 2016, 06:39:04 AM »

In my opinion, though, there should not be a leader of grassroots movements who control its path.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: March 07, 2016, 06:47:47 AM »

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.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: March 07, 2016, 07:00:37 AM »

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.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: March 07, 2016, 07:13:46 AM »

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.     
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: March 07, 2016, 07:21:33 AM »

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.'
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.221 seconds with 21 queries.