The Gay Campaign of Bernie 2016 (La Campagne Drôle)

I am entitled to some plain language here: After all I maxed out in my contributions to Bernie 2016.

Bernie stressed on issues but failed to connect Hillary to those issues. How can you run an effective ad against TPP without mentioning that Clinton was who – as Secretary of State – WROTE the damn treaty?

Bernie has been stepping on eggs from day 1. He should have been a pit bull in those debates. Did he really mean to win the nomination? I am beginning to wonder now.

Bernie called Hillary “disingenuous” repeatedly. Why not hypocrite? Why not opportunistic? Bernie has been doing this campaign like the French fought in 1940: La Guerre Drôle. Hillary Clinton is a natural liar and should have been exposed as such.

For all practical purposes, the Bernie campaign has ceased to fight for the nomination although he still claims he is trying to win and continues to ask for money. He is attacking anybody but Clinton. Obviously he has folded and now they all are looking to unite the democrats against Trump.

The problem I have with this is the following: When I stack Clinton against Trump, she has started 2 wars (Syria and Libya both in 2011 while Secretary of State) against Trump 0. She is pro-trade and globalization whereas Trump believes trade agreements have destroyed American industry and put the American Middle Class in the poor house.

So Trump has a problem with Muslims? So do I for that matter as long as they come around putting bombs and killing civilians.

I don’t think that just Black Lives Matter. I think all lives matter.

I was never a party robot. I vote on the merits and programs of candidates. Obama fooled me in 2008 – he is just a pseudo Democrat and has wrecked the ideological foundation of the Democratic Party. That is why we Democrats have lost both chambers and so many states; people just quit believing. When defending principles and ideals, being a “moderate” is paramount to betrayal.

I was asked to become a delegate for Bernie. I refused 48 hours ago. I refuse to be part of the charade in Philly in July.

Advertisements

Major setback for U.S. workers: Congress passes free trade deals with 3 nations

Congress passes trade deals with 3 nations – Oct. 12, 2011.

I can only explain this as collective congressional delusion leading to self-destruction. Of the three countries, South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, only South Korea has the capacity to be a significant market but, like China, its currency is undervalued so American exports would be very pricey there whereas South Korean imports coming to the U.S. will be very competitive and will put American manufacturers out of business.

The White House has essentially traded these deals for the Trade Adjustment Assistance program of retraining workers whose employers have moved overseas.

As I see it, it works like this. The government opens the country to imports knowing very well that they will displace American workers and then institutes a program to retrain those workers and calls the trade agreements “instruments for growth and job creation.”

This does not make any sense to me, from the point of view of national interest and the interest of the majority of Americans.

The three agreements are expected to generate a meager $13 billion in exports every year. No mention of the volume of imports into this country.

I quote a comment from a reader: “Jobs’ bill for Americans fails in Senate. Jobs’ bill for Koreans, Colombians, and Panamanians passes without difficulty.”

This is bitter.

Free Trade Agreements do not benefit American workers

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2011/08/hoffa_makes_stops_in_new_jerse.html

Hoffa is right: Trade agreements do not benefit American workers. The unemployment situation we have today is directly caused by trade agreements signed by previous presidents, both democrat and republican. The U.S. government could tailor its tax laws to discourage the export of capital as a means to compensate for the agreements already in place.

That is what I intend to do in New Jersey if elected governor in 2013. However, it is a much more effective tool when it is done at the national level.

But as we can see, president Obama may go just in the opposite direction and sign agreements with the 3 countries mentioned in the article. And if a republican is elected president in 2012, we’ll see even more of that policy.