Democrats Abroad In Argentina For Bernie Sanders

Status
Not open for further replies.
His speechwriter is remarkably trite. She or he probably used to be a very successful Hollywood scriptwriter.
True simplicity is difficult to achieve. I commend his campaign team for successfully degrading to the level of the average citizen.
 
I seem to remember that a certain Sam W Woods was an active member of Democrats Abroad.
 
Janis -

Thank you VERY much for your financial support for our campaign.

When we talk about a "political revolution," we are not just talking about tinkering around the edges of American society. We are talking about transforming our country in many respects -- the economy, health care, education, the environment, criminal justice, immigration and many other areas.

But what we are also talking about is transforming our corrupt campaign finance system -- a system which, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, now allows millionaires and billionaires to buy elections and undermine the very foundations of American democracy.

What we have done together so far in this campaign is not only extraordinary and unprecedented, it is transforming American politics. What we have shown is that we can raise over $40 million dollars without having a Super PAC. What we have shown is that we can raise an amount of money which makes us financially competitive by securing 1.3 million contributions from, unbelievably, 650,000 Americans. What we have shown is that we can run a successful campaign without having to depend upon donations from the wealthy and the powerful, and that we can do it with an average campaign contribution of only $30.

Our political system is corrupt. Big Money controls much of what happens.

Together, you and I are changing that.

Thank you again for your support.

Best,

Bernie
 
Dear Janis,

Wall Street and big corporations just won a big victory to advance a disastrous trade deal. Now it's on us to stop it from becoming law.

This morning, negotiators announced an "agreement in principle" for something called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), meaning it will soon move to Congress for approval.

The TPP would expand the same failed "free trade" policies to 12 other nations that have already cost millions of jobs and shuttered tens of thousands of factories across the United States.

Make no mistake: if TPP passes, it will further hurt consumers and cost American jobs. So we must stop it, together.

In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat this agreement. But I need you at my side in this fight, because we will be going against some of the biggest, strongest corporations in the world.

Add your name to mine to stand against the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal. Let's show them that people can prevail over corporations.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA that have been supported by corporate America and that cost America millions of decent-paying jobs.

Since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants in this country have been shut down, and we have lost almost 5 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. NAFTA alone led to the loss of almost three-quarters of a million jobs — the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China cost America four times that number: almost 3 million jobs. These agreements are not the only reason why manufacturing in the United States has declined, but they are important factors.

The TPP would also give multinational corporations the ability to challenge laws passed in the United States that could negatively impact their “expected future profits.” Take, for example, a French waste management firm suing Egypt for over $100 million for increasing the minimum wage and improving labor laws. Egypt’s “crime” in this case is trying to improve life for their low-wage workers. Or Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company, has used this process to sue Germany for $5 billion over its decision to phase out nuclear power. Should the people of Germany have the right to make energy choices on their own or should these decisions be left in the hands of an unelected international tribunal?

We face the same threats here at home if the TPP passes.

Virtually every major union and environmental organization in the United States is against the deal. Major religious groups are as well because they know what it could mean for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Wall Street, corporate America and their representatives in Congress will try to pass this bad trade deal. This is our chance to make our voices heard.

Click here to add your name to mine to stand against passing the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Not a lot of presidential candidates would use their campaigns to influence legislation being considered in Congress. Some candidates haven’t even expressed an opinion on this critical issue, which, frankly, I don’t really understand.

But as I’ve said before, this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush — it’s about the needs of the American people.

And we need a new approach to trade in this country — one that benefits working families and not just the CEOs of multinational corporations.

Thank you for standing with working families.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders
 
Jantango

Are you personally against the idea of the Trans Pacific Partnership? I know Sanders is but I find it hard to believe that an expat could buy into this sort of nationalist philippic.
 
I've relied on social security benefits for five years as my only income because it is possible to live on it in Buenos Aires, even though I receive well below the "average" benefit of $1,328 each month. I believed the story I was told that social security was running out of money until I heard differently from Bernie Sanders a few months ago.

Bernie Sanders explains Social Security in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcv7g3O_iM
if you're interested. He has a plan to fund it so that it continues and seniors don't live in poverty.

p.s. I agree with Bernie on the TPP.
 
Why are you against the TPP? Is it any specific part of the TPP (which is hard to know since the full text hasn't been released (or finalized) yet and the outline was just agreed to a few days ago) or are you against free trade deals (such as NAFTA) all together.
 
Jan,

Thanks for the PM. I thought I'd reply here in case others want to get in on the discussion. As was mentioned in another thread about Argentina selling fissile material to Iran, there is nothing nefarious about the fact that the contents of the deal weren't made public until there actually was a deal to make public. For it to be approved by congress the full text has to be available for a month or two for public review so I'm sure we'll find out the details in a bit.

From what we know now, the TPP is going to be responsible for opening up markets in a lot of 3 world countries and history has shown that an opening of trade generally drives higher standards of development.

Initial reaction to the TPP has caused a big outcry from Bernie Sanders and the lobbies for "Big Pharma" and "Big Tobacco" who are disappointed that the deal will allow for cheaper generic drugs and public health initiatives. Going from your posts on the forum the impression that I have of you is not one who would agree with those latter lobbies.

Bernie Sanders is just pandering to the Big Money political action arms of US Labor in an attempt to wrest some of their money and support from Clinton.
 
Dear Janis,

Thank you for sharing this video about the TPP with me,

jantango said:
This clip tells me why TPP is a disaster for Americans
https://www.youtube....h?v=RTZzoXPKXn0
Click to expand...

I have a few comments and wanted to make them on the forum so that other members can contribute to the discussion.

First of all on that clip you have to look at the source. Russia Today is a Putin's state funded propaganda arm. Their editorial line is always one that represents the Kremlins current desire to break the hegemony of US dominance in international affairs. Some of the countries involved in the TPP have been historically closer to Moscow than Washington and this is something that Putin is not in favor of. Just look at what's going on in the Ukraine and Syria.

Secondly, the main issue about the death sentence bit is laughable. The anchor says "the deal will cost American Lives"

The TPP is going to lower the amount of time that study data enjoys intellectual property protection in the US not increase it.

Not to mention, nobody in the US is going to die since new drugs are available from the laboratory and even if the cost is high, people in the US do not die because they can't afford medicine.

In solidarity,

Rodolfo Walsh
 
I have considerable doubts about the TPP:

1. Since I am in favour of free and fair trade, the little that has been leaked out of the deal has shown that this is not a free trade agreement at all, and will rather increase protectionist measures such as copyright and patent protections.

2. The "trade" aspect of this agreement is greatly exaggerated by its proponents. By GDP, the US already has free trade with 82% of the countries in the deal. So what exactly are the barriers that are being broken down? There is no evidence that they outweigh the increased protectionism that we know is in the deal.

3. The most optimistic forecasts say that the TPP could lead to +0.4% GDP. If you look at these optimistic estimates, they assume full employment in all signatory countries over the next 12 years, and furthermore they assume that no employment disruptions would occur from the inevitable offshoring-- all for a measly +0.4%. Empirical evidence would have to show that the risks and damages caused by the deal (such as offshoring of jobs and decreased international access to pharmaceuticals) should be far less than this meager gain.

4. This looks a lot like NAFTA, which decimated Mexican agriculture because Mexico was unable to compete with highly subsidised US agriculture, thus increasing unemployment in Mexico and destroying the country's economic growth, and leading to increased immigration northward. A TPP would have to eliminate agriculture subsidies to avoid this, and Japan, Australia and New Zealand have all categorically refused to make any such agreement to decrease their subsidies.

5. The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism envisaged in the TPP will effectively limit any sort of public control over corporate regulation, allowing companies to sue the public if they don't like a country's regulations, undermining local law. And their suits would be decided by a secret panel staffed without public control.

6. The TPP will decrease regulation over risky financial instruments like credit default swaps which led to the 2008 crisis. Thus, when combined with the ISDS clause, if the US were to want to, for example, reinstate Glass-Steagel protections that prevent banks from mixing their banking business with risky investment/casino business, the US could be sued by JP Morgan/Goldman et al, and forced by an unelected secret panel of business interests to return to the unregulated situation that led to the 2008 crisis.

In short, little has been disclosed about the TPP, but every bit that has leaked out has been shown to be categorically damaging. It has nothing to do with free trade, it will make medicine less accessible, make the internet less free, and a whole array of other major issues that will affect most people negatively: all in exchange for benefits that are very meager at best. In view of these negative aspects, while it should not be rejected outright, TPP should nevertheless be open to a major transparent public debate.

In solidarity,

Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top