Three dozen union workers gathered outside city hall here on Thursday to rally against the global free-trade deals they believe have harmed Americans like them. Their candidate was Katie McGinty, the Democrats’ nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. But their spiritual leader was Republican Donald Trump.

“He recognized there’s some problems we need to solve,” said McGinty, who is challenging Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R), a free-trade advocate. “One, we have to stop bad trade agreements. . . . And two, we have to take the Chinese on when they manipulate their currency and dump goods in our markets.”

Continue reading:  Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric rattles the campaign message of Clinton and unions


18 thoughts on “Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric rattles the campaign message of Clinton and unions

    • Indeed; although, it’s hard to trust anything Trump says.

      The article goes on to describe how the issue of trade is weakening labor union support for Hillary – which was once the bedrock of the Democratic Party base.


      • Right. I do not trust Trump’s rhetoric at all. He’ll say what he has to, then do what he wants to once elected. Hillary needs to start kissing Bernie’s ass. We need the message of the Bern-meister to live on powerfully.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. I don’t know enough about the deals or their effect on different groups. There must have been some reason our leaders wanted it, at the same time has the deal worked out the way they figured it would? I just don’t know. I am sad that these people have to look to a person like trump for their inspiration. Hugs


    • I am reasonably well-versed in so-called “free trade” agreements as well as their realized and potential impacts on society. Such globalist neoliberal policy implements trace back to the Reagan administration and have continued to escalate under every presidential administration since.

      The weight of circumstantial evidence resulting from FTAs like NAFTA is overwhelming. Domestic manufacturing and associated jobs have been grotesquely off-shored to foreign countries offering cheap labor and weak regulatory laws to transnational corporations. Wealth inequality has skyrocketed, labor unions have been decimated, wages have stagnated, and the once-great American middle class has been eviscerated. All this was no accident.

      Now we have the TPP, TTIP, and other new FTAs which are targeting democracy and the right of nations to govern themselves. I suggest you read up on trade provisions known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which subordinate the laws of sovereign nations under arbitrarily appointed arbitrator committees.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I do not think the wealth inequality, labor union decimation , and the loss of the middle class is all due free trade agreements. I think of Gov Walker who pledged to ruin the unions just on principal. There are other laws passed at both state and federal levels that attributed to the declines you site. I am not saying FTA had no effect, I am just not sure how much, and I am saying that these things would have happened, the attempts would have been tried using the methods other than FTA. I think there has to be some benefit to free trade agreements done correctly as that basically is what the UE is about, and we saw the costs that are projected for Britain to now trade with others in that union, it will cost a lot more. I think the thing to work on is to bring equality of standard of living up in all countries in the partnership so there is not an incentive to ship jobs to a lower income country, or there needs to be sufficient balancing mechanisms worked out to prevent the migration of all of one type of industry. Thanks for the update on what these things mean as I did not follow it. Hugs


        • “I don’t know enough about the deals or their effect on different groups.”

          You don’t know enough about the effects of free trade, yet you offer affirmative opinions supporting it? I find that rather puzzling. It’s as if you have placed the same kind of blind faith in the political advocates of free trade as do religious followers place in the belief of their chosen god.

          “I do not think the wealth inequality, labor union decimation , and the loss of the middle class is all due free trade agreements.”

          That’s not what I said. This is what I wrote which includes domestic policy:

          “Such globalist neoliberal policy implements trace back to the Reagan administration and have continued to escalate under every presidential administration since.”

          Look at this graph, the circumstantial case it presents is unmistakable: https://thesecularjurist.wordpress.com/2015/09/06/regardless-of-how-you-might-feel-about-labor-unions-these-graphs-show-exactly-why-theyre-needed/class-war-graph-2/#main

          “I think the thing to work on is to bring equality of standard of living up in all countries…”

          Agreed, but that goal is neither the duty of the U.S. to fulfill nor should it be pursued at the expense of American workers and consumers.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Well lets see. I agree I misunderstood your direction of your post to be an attack on FTA’s and the results you mentioned to be the result of them. I simply replied I think the results were not JUST caused by the FTA’s, and in fact I also still say I just don’t know the complete ways FTA’s work so I can’t evaluate their effect truly on anything. So I am more than willing to take your word for their effect along with the other things that worked to create this sad result. I guess the problem I have is I don’t know what the deals say as to item A compared to item C. Do they get rid of tariffs, do they get rid of government subsidies, do they say subsidy A is equal to action D but not allowed if used with part F. No offence but these agreements between countries on trade are like an IKEA construction manual designed to protect certain goods, sectors, or companies…. while saying to hell with the others. As far as the free trade deal Pres. Clinton worked out.. I was lead to believe by the news accounts it would make things better, make our products move into huge new markets and basicly the advantages outweighed any negatives, and yes I supported it. Now looking back I think I should have learned more, asked a few more questions. However if we had not done something to try to open markets would the results have been worse. I say they would still have been jobs sent out of the country, still be weakened and eliminated unions and a stagnant wages and less middle class.
          But to the goal I mentioned. No I don’t think the USA or any country should pursue any agreements at the expense of UNREASONABLE sectors of the economy or the people in those sectors. Every advancement has some casualties. Cars put many sectors of horse business out of business. But the advancement has to be worth it, to be balanced on cost to gain. But why can’t we work to make the rest of the world better. We claim to do it in governmenting styles. We claim to do it in human rights. We say we want the world to have what we have ( even if sadly they have a better way of doing it and don’t want what we have ) why don’t we try to make their economics better? I would rather we spent the money in the wars we have to give the people better standards of living ( toilet facilities and better food, and ways to make it, so on and so on… than just blow them up and say here, have democracy in your destroyed country.

          You are correct I did not understand the agreements and I guess I still don’t. I look at Britain and the EU and the arguments I hear for staying vr those for leaving. It seems unless I misunderstand ( which I can ) that they are finding the economic cost of leaving to be horrendous and many want a redo of the vote. From the effect it had short term on the world economy it did seem a bad choice to leave. How that works out in the end???? I just don’t know.

          I know we have trade deals with individual countries. We have them separately with the same countries we have multi country packs with. I am thinking that a deal worked out that equalizes a bunch of countries will be better than a dozen separate deals with the same countries, as the separate dealing countries would undercut each other. OR am I historically wrong on that? Please don’t misunderstand my position. I am not saying I know these things for certain. Until now I did not pay attention to it. I guess I should have. But it did not seem to affect me greatly so I worried about things that did. I am learning from the things you post and offering what I do know or feel to be a reasoned response. I am not insisting on anyone agreeing with me or changing their view. I am trying to understand and offer my understanding at the time. Be well, be happy. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • >>> “However if we had not done something to try to open markets would the results have been worse. I say they would still have been jobs sent out of the country, still be weakened and eliminated unions and a stagnant wages and less middle class.”

          How? Please explain with specifics. As my graph clearly shows, the rise of wealth inequality and the demise of labor unions began at the very moment of neoliberal policy implementation.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Robert I will try to explain but I can not give you the exact tax cuts law, or the exact attempt by the republican lawmakers to deny dues to unions so they could starve them to death. I am saying that the demise of unions and the loss of wages for the middle class and the wealth inequality in the USA have many causes. There was undeniably an attempt by a political party to move money from the lower income level to an upper income level to please certain parties to then collect greater donations and perks from those same upper level income parties. The unions were set on by this same party because they fought back against the governing party being able to do this movement of wealth and benefits. Those things became entrenched in the party dogma. Now was it just one party, well mostly and it was put into the platform of one party, however it seems sadly that the other party may have engaged in some of the same processes but it was not part of the party platform. For me and most of the country it became accepted that one party wanted to take all the money in the economy and move it up to a wealthy elite, and wanted to move all the benefits and rights up to this same small upper class. It became an us against them way of seeing things. It also was re-enforced more and more that one party was out to harm the lower class, lower income, and the other party were trying to stop them. So the lower class and seeming progressive people turned to one party entrusting them to protect them from the other party that seemed to want to raid all that the lower classes had or could get.

          Now the question seems to be as I understand it…are the current party called “democratic party” better for the lower income ( class) than the political party called “republican”. I am sorry but to me I don’t have a good grasp on the labels “neocon” and “neoliberal”. I think I would just lose the “Neo” and call them conservatives and liberals. I am not sure if I read it on your blog or in looking up the neoliberal but it seemed the definition was to take all public entities and turn them over to private business. Well that is a plank of the Republican party platform, it is a signature of the republican party. It is not a part of the democratic party as I know and understand it. So I see a big difference between the parties and now at my point in life, having lost most of my abilities other than what little wit I still enjoy, ( yes small as it is 🙂 ) I will support the democratic party as I think.. yes I know that is subjective but it is the best I have right now … that will be the party to make laws that are more in my interest. Did I answer your question? I got a bit caught up in the writing of the answer and think I may have slid a bit sideways of what you wanted… you wanted exact examples of the laws, the acts, the evil doers.. I don’t keep a record of the specifics.. I just remember the overview. Sorry if this doesn’t answer what you asked, I really tried. I am not sure I can do better in trying again to answer the question. sorry. many hugs


        • Thanks for the effort, anyway. You’re correct that the Republican Party is profoundly anti-union and anti-worker; however, you are incorrect in assuming that the Democratic Party is still pro-union and pro-worker. The Democratic Party establishment abandoned labor many years ago after it adopted the neoliberal economic policies which had begun under President Reagan.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I tried. I can only vote for the choices I have which I can believe by what I hear and can find , will make things better for me and those like me. I assume the other side is doing the same thing. In a way I feel like a USA / soviet cold war.. the ones losing are all of us somehow. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

      • I was reading that ISDS thing because I read that one of the new trade deal over rides our environmental protections and could force our own laws to default to a foreign company. But what I am reading is saying that it only makes it harder for a person to sue a government. But private people can’t sue a foreign government now with out permission from our government? Like people had to get permission from the courts to sue Iran I think it was? How can a private person sue another country in US courts.. I just don’t get that. If we did that they would sue us non stop. Hugs


        • No, that’s not what it’s about. ISDS are provisions in free trade agreements (e.g. TPP and TTIP) which allow transnational corporations to challenge the application of the national laws (e.g. environmental regulations, worker protections, etc.) of member states – which might impact their business operations and profitability – in supranational arbitration committees that are arbitrarily appointed. ISDS provisions have triggered mass protests in Europe and elsewhere because they are an obvious affront to democracy and national sovereignty.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Sorry. I just spent what I think was a half hour.. felt like more.. trying to answer our neoliberal question. here is what I got when I googled ISDS…

          Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an instrument of public international law, that grants an investor the right to use dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government.

          So I have to say I can’t believe that what you are saying could be legal. Has there been a challenge to it in the usa courts? I can see why they would cause mass protests… and I am confused why any sovereign government would agree to them. It is like a bad sci-fi novel where corporations rule the worlds.. I read a few one of my favorites is Catspaw (https://www.amazon.com/Catspaw-Joan-D-Vinge/dp/0765303418 ) I think the prequel is Psion.
          Ok so I guess if enough people already are upset about this it must be a reality. I can NOT see how it could be legal. What is the party positions? Do the members of congress really want to give up their power and rights , it seems rather self defeating to them. I admit I not had ANY trade agreement explained to me on any news network I saw say we would place our country under the whims of a foreign corporation. That truly is horrific and I doubt we could depend on an extraterrestrial hero to come save us all from our stupidity. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

        • I still don’t like it.. it shouldn’t be legal for to give the rights of sovereignty away. I thought that was one of the ways we have of keeping the native population from getting run over.. I am a big supporter of the native peoples rights. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s