Since Democrats have greased the skids for offshore-happy corporations to ship jobs overseas by the hundreds of thousands, from Clinton’s NAFTA to Obama’s TTP and TTIP, there’s nothing to be gained by trying to draw a contrast with Republicans who offshore jobs by the hundreds.
In fact, doing so is laughable. It’s akin to giving a speech on income inequality in a $12,000 Armani jacket.
Off topic, but some additional info about the alleged income inequality speech:
The negative impacts of Clinton’s NAFTA and other current and pending FTAs is leading to other consequences, all of which are horrible from a human rights perspective. With gutting the agricultural industry of Mexico with corporate farming, the millions of camposinos losing their ability to survive in their fields and on their own farms has been destroyed. The immediate consequence of that have been apparent for years now: the 100s of 1000s of Mexican families fleeing across the border from Mexico to the USA, seeking a chance to survive somehow. And the human rights disaster results in, maybe not an “unintended consequence”, is thereby providing the grist mill for our corporate prison industry to rake in 1000s of these FTA refugees, children included now imprisoned in Texas holding farms - prison camps, and $billions in profits, since this industry is paid $26,000 / inmate by Obama’s / dubya’s / Congressional politics and policies! Big money that industry is, capitalizing on the human suffering created by Clinton and now capitalized big time by the congress with funding prisons. Talk about a horrible president- and also provides an excuse for massive increased funding for ICE and associate industries / services. I could go on with other worldwide human rights disasters created by the FTAs, but this is an obvious one right under most folks noses and ignored by media, and most USA citizens of course.
I’ll bet these patriots have a few Irish, Cninese and Mexican lapel flag pins to suit the occasion.
This is the universal problem of every Rumpublican on most subjects. It’s also the most common way for thoughtful, sensible conservatives (i.e. Democrats) to err on the side of being too conservative.
Every offshore job, and every onshore job given to an illegal immigrant, was the deliberate choice of an American businessperson. Every revenue stream laundered through an offshore tax shelter is the deliberate choice of an American business executive. Rumpublicans always cater to the desires of American business executives, and Democrats join them far too often.
The scandal is what’s legal. Every Rumpublican supports the legislation to make it all possible, and their second most helpful service rendered is to cop out, lie, and scapegoat the Chinese, illegal immigrants, the invisible hand, social experimenting transsexuals, urine-drug-screen-failing unemployment compensation beneficiaries, and whoever else it may take to deflect blame from the American business executives who are truly responsible for these deliberate choices.
Nobody embodies both sides of this coin so well as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The choice is plenty clear, as Hillary still has enough brains and decency to land on the left side of things a little over half the time in my opinion. Rump has none of that. This summer it will be hard to distinguish the constant buzzing noise of the 17 year cicadas, from the collective raspberries of millions of Americans.
that making america great again slogan is such utter (udder?) bull shit.
I’m sure that jacket cost a lot less than the flight Bernie chartered for him,his family, and campaign staff to fly to Rome for a PR stunt.
The jacket issue is s no win situation for her.
If she wears something off the rack, she’s frumpy and pandering.
If she wears expensive designer threads, well, you see what happens.
Curious that the NY Post didn’t bother to compare with the sartorial splendor of male politicians.
Jacket-schmacket. Red herring. People in the public eye are expected to dress the part. Nobody seriously thinks she should buy her clothes on sale at Target or drive around in a Sentra, but if you don’t like her I guess it feels good to say that stuff.
One thing I’m pretty sure of is those host committee guys wink knowingly at each other over this stuff Trump says about offshoring. Trump’s fleecing the rubes with that talk and they know it. You can be a SJW and rail about how the Democrats dwell somewhere to the right of Trotsky and how awful it is. But the fact remains there’s only one candidate running who directly went into the pockets of struggling people and defrauded them in an elaborate bunko scheme to take advantage of their desperation. Only one, and you know it.
The Post is a Murdoch rag in the tank for Trump.
This article seems to be written with the implicit assumption that Trump means anything he says. If pressed, I’m sure Trump will explain how these are very smart businessmen making business decisions because to do otherwise would mean your parents were born in mexico.
Josh has a piece to-day about the danger of “presidential-Trump”…a scenario in which he “could” morph into some sort of jobs and infrastructure “populist” (particularly in Pennsylvania). See below…
Here is where the hatred that people feel about Trump has to be set aside for a real appraisal of Trump’s capabilities. Unfortunately, I do not have much of a “feel” for the American people, due to lack of hand-on experience…but what I can see leads me to believe that they would fall for what Josh describes below even as they may be aware of his many failings. I believe that the thing, to me, that could sink Trump is his emotional instability, his meanness, his temperament, his thin skin.
IF Trump DOES NOT act like a 7 year old, I am gravely concerned. In my mind, people cannot wait to be conned by Trump. All Trump has to do is act like an adult for a five months.
Can he?
EXCERPT FROM JOSH’S PIECE TO-DAY (under the heading “Democrats have reason to worry”)
[But in his “victory speech” on June 7 in Westchester, which the pundits pronounced as “boring,” Trump took the third path. If he can maintain it, and make people forget Trump #1, he could be formidable. Some highlights:
*He framed the election in classic populist terms: “I’m going to be America’s champion because you see this election isn’t about Republican or Democrat; it’s about who runs this country – the special interests or the people and I mean the American people.”
*Instead of the usual Republican bromides against government spending, he bemoaned crumbling public infrastructure: “I visited the crumbling cities and the struggling schools. I’ve seen our dilapidated airports, highways, bridges and I’ve compared them to other countries where we see facilities so far superior to ours it’s really not to be believed, hard to imagine what’s happened to our country.”
The hypocritical fish rots and stinks from the head down, and these job cremators just reflect their ol’ pal Scammer Don:
Fascinating, isn’t it? How people obsess over what men say, but over what women wear? Do you suppose there is some sort of deep philosophical insight involved there?
About the jacket…
Feminism still has a long way to go, and right now it’s going backwards. Women, more and more, are expected to be decorations. Can’t take a woman seriously unless she’s “fashionable.” Women in politics can’t be seen wearing the same thing twice if she wants to be taken seriously. Do you realize what a burden that is? Men can get by with a few suits and many ties. And shoes? Don’t get me started. Female newscasters? Not only fashionable but form fitting - a necessity. And on and on.
Really. An Armani jacket. How gauche! Trump would never be caught dead in an Armani. His suits are probably triple the cost, maybe more. After all, nothing is too good for Donny Con.
Chartered 767 for Bernie and his entourage plus accommodations for all those people? A horrendous amount of money, I’d hate to guess.
I don’t know if it’s deep or philosophical, but it would be fun to put the same jacket on Elizabeth Warren, send her out to make a speech in it, and listen to the howls of outrage from the same people criticizing Hillary if anyone said one mumbling word about it.
Yes, this is a complicated subject that involves more than just trade deals. Tax laws, globalization and the practices of an increasingly financialized business sector are also complicit.
Stupid question, but what is an SJW?