Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Farage tag teams with Galloway for Brexit; when will Sanders tag team with Trump against TPP?

metamars's picture

I had a slightly wild idea the other day. Both Trump and Sanders have credibly* come out against TPP, but both have been disappointments in terms of using their candidacies - with the attendant millions of dollars of free advertising that come with them - to really educate the public about TPP. TPP awareness is abysmal. Which makes it that much more likely that it will be passed in the lame duck session, before either a President Sanders or President Trump can take office.

Today, I was moderately excited to learn that my two favorite British politicians, George Galloway (a lefty) and Nigel Farage (a righty) are teaming up for the pro-Brexit "Grassroots Out" campaign. Link.

C'mon, Trump and Sanders! If Galloway and Farage can "cross the streams", so can you two! IMO, the amount of amazed, delighted grass roots fervor that such coordination could generate might a) allow Sanders to overcome Clinton's super-delegate advantage and b) allow Trump to make getting cheated, via a brokered Republican convention far less likely.

The American public would win, via a quantum leap in anti-TPP awareness.

IMO, there's a bigger downside for Trump, since he MAY be able to secure the Republican nomination without Sanders' help, but Sanders' winning the democratic nomination means a more formidable foe in the general election. The only downside for Sanders, OTOH, is that the Democratic Party establishment will be more motivated to deny him the nomination. Likewise, a downside for Trump is that the Republican establishment will be more motivated to deny him the R nomination.

Hopefully, both of will focus on steamrolling their opposition. They will then have the nice problem of dealing with each other in the general election.

I personally view EITHER the presence of Sanders as the Democratic nominee, or Trump as the Republican nominee, as very good for democracy. The succes of either of them in the general election would all but guarantee that, for the next four years, the plutocracy would be taken down a notch.

* unlike Hilary Clinton. As was pointed out by Ed Schulz on his new RT show, very recently, she's "against" it, but hasn't bothered to pick up the phone and lobby against it. (Also, she was for it 46 times, before she came out against it. I.e., completely unbelievable.)

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

I think a Sanders-Trump alignment would not do Bernie any favors, although it might help Trump get some of Bernie's disaffected supporters in the general if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, especially the bros who have taken to parrotting right wing talking points when it comes to the Clintons.

I take a lot of what I hear from Ed Schultz with a grain of salt, especially concerning either Clinton. Hillary supported TPP while she was SOS, and I think she was trying to remain a good and loyal soldier to Obama after her tenure.

I'm not sure who you would like Hillary to lobby or whether it would even be appropriate for a candidate who does not hold any current office to do so.

Maybe it is done, but I could just imagine the narrative of self-righteous outrage against "that woman's sense of entitlement" if Hillary Clinton did it.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

I'm not sure who you would like Hillary to lobby or whether it would even be appropriate for a candidate who does not hold any current office to do so.

She could lobby and and all Congressional Democrats, who are at all wobbly on TPP (at least "in it's present form"). And, if she was really against it, she would press them to publicly condemn TPP (at least "in it's present form").

She has the right of free speech right, as an American citizen. If someone wants to deny her her free speech right, she should verbally smack them down.

Of course, she's not credible on TPP, so I don't expect her to do any such thing, unless it was a half-hearted, duplicitous gesture.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Metamars, it's an interesting idea. I'd have to think it through. Trump, of course, is dangerous to democracy in many ways, and a Sanders collaboration with him, would violate Bernie's principles, so I guess I don't think that what you suggest is a possibility.

As for HRC, there is nothing in her background, to even remotely suggest opposition to the TPP. From her statement of opposition, with the qualification, "as written," to the silence of her various campaign people, and the people closest to her in politics; to her lack of lobbying the 28 House members who voted for the TPA (which makes it much easier to pass the TPP), and most of whom would undoubtedly oppose the TPP and make its passage impossible, if she made it clear that if they value her friendliness after her likely victory, then they must vote against the TPP if and when it comes up for a vote, and finally, to the ties of friendliness and mutual support between the Clintons and the Petersons that have existed at leas since the 1990s, everything about her so-called opposition to the TPP screams "lie." There's just no other way to construe this pattern.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

While he's made some autocratic noises, which reveal his ignorance of the law, on the whole I don't see much "danger" to democracy.* The existential threat is the plutocracy, with TTP (and the like) the final nails in the coffin. Secondary threats to our democracy that I see are the imperialist/national security freaks (who would love to criminalize BDS activists on American campuses) as well as some greenie types (like climate FACT ignoramus Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who wants to use RICO laws to prosecute so-called "global warming deniers") and lefty "social justice warriors" who can be completely intolerant of free speech that they don't agree with (especially on campuses, or so it seems).

I dismiss the (US) democratic "rights" of people who come to the US illegally to be on equal par with American citizens.

Bona-fide American Muslims have, apparently, legitimate concerns that a Trump presidency would likely result in increased surveillance and profiling. Unfortunately, believers in Islam comprise both political/subversive, political/terrorist, and "purely" religious types. According to Srdja Trifkovic, surveillance of Muslims is legally permissible based on the political/subversive aspect. Trifkovic has advocated laws similar to those formerly employed against American communists. These were not based on the idea that most American communists sought a violent overthrow of the government, but rather that a small, but dangerous minority were so inclined.

While Trump is generally saner and more rational regarding foreign policy - he appears to be a realist, and not an ideologue - he's made troubling statements about "taking their oil", "killing the families of terrorists", and "bombing the hell out of them" (with no voiced concern about killing innocents). Thus, it's fair to voice considerable concern about Trump's effects on the human rights of foreigners. However, given his generally non-interventionist POV, IMO we should compare anticipated war crimes ala Trump against the disasters of Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc., that were largely the result of US meddling (as well as US tolerance and cooperation with terrorist coddling and financing Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), and what horrific levels of death and displacement resulted.

In light of the recent disaster in AZ, I'd like to know Trump's position on the voting rights act. I happen to know that (typically) Republican concerns about vote fraud by Democrats is legitimate - my cousin observes van loads of out-of-staters being shipped in to vote opposite his office in a largely black town here in NJ, every election day. OTOH, it's quite obvious that the needs of legitimate voters were denied in AZ. I like to believe that he wants to protect the rights of legitimate (US citizen) voters....

* He is, of course, a huge threat to non-vulgarity. :-) However, his vulgarity seems to emanate from the same constellation of forces in his psyche from which originates his (welcome) dis-respect of political correctness.