Sanders Talks About Disastrous Trade Policy. Clinton Doesn’t.

By Jerry Alatalo


Alphabet During recent campaign rallies in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has named those state’s companies and numbers of workers laid off after moving operations to Mexico, China and other low-wage countries. He points out the clear difference between his and Hillary Clinton’s records on major U.S. trade agreements that have led to 60,000 manufacturing plants and millions of good-paying jobs leaving America.

Sanders tells people at his rallies that he’s been opposed to each one of “these disastrous trade agreements” from the day he arrived in Congress, and that Clinton has supported virtually every one of them. One could predict the Clinton campaign’s media strategists will soon appear on the boob tube accusing Sanders of “going negative” – by telling the American people the truth.

Ms. Clinton has been captured on videos praising the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) and calling it the “Gold Standard”, then – as the 2016 campaign progressed and her “strategists” realized most Americans oppose TPP – suddenly evolve in her thinking about the proposed, largest trade pact in world history. Now she opposes TPP because, as she explained it, her initial support was founded on incomplete information; after more details became available, she then “understood” and changed her stance by 180-degrees to opposition.

Sanders’ decision to specify the negative consequences of NAFTA – signed into law by Ms. Clinton’s husband during his first term as President – and other corporate-written trade deals will resonate strongly with citizens in states where hundreds, thousands of families faced tough times after fathers and mothers were laid off. The Clinton team will find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain away her choice of supporting the trade deals which led to real-life, on-the-ground hardship for millions of Americans.

One can imagine Clinton strategic meetings occurring now, behind closed doors of course, where the discussion focuses on how to deal with Sanders’ successful tactic of naming the companies who’ve moved plants to Mexico, China, etc., the numbers of laid off workers, and specific to the state where rallies are being held. Just a guess, but one can imagine the strategists in the meeting concluding any response or counterattack is a certain losing proposition, so strict silence on trade deals is the best option for avoiding negative publicity and losing voters to Sanders.

The last time an independent candidate for President was able to take part in the final debates was in 1992, when Ross Perot, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were the last three standing. Perot’s leveling with the American people on the proposed NAFTA trade deal produced a for-all-time popular and memorable quote. Perot warned of the massive outflow of jobs from the United States to Mexico if NAFTA legislation became the law, and that once signed the American people would hear a “huge sucking sound” – meaning jobs sucked out of the country.

Ironically, Perot’s candidacy took votes from Bush and helped Clinton narrowly win the 1992 election, and not too long after taking office Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement into law. Perot’s warning wasn’t heeded but prophetic, and the trend of corporate owners’ opting on moving facilities to Mexico rapidly accelerated, leaving regions around the country hard hit by layoffs – most notably in the “Motor City” of Detroit, Michigan.

It’s fascinating to think about what will transpire in the days ahead as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton vie to become the Democratic nominee for President. It seems the entire country is now electrified, excitedly anticipating every development, and eager to fully take part in determining the “inevitable” outcome.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)

11 thoughts on “Sanders Talks About Disastrous Trade Policy. Clinton Doesn’t.

  1. As a Canadian. it seems unfair and UN-Democratic, the current Imperial Power (US) in the mould of the 1st Great Imperial Economic-Military Superpower, Biblical Babylon, now known as Iraq, believing it has some “Divine Mandate” or sense of “Exceptionalism” to conform this world to it’s image and value system, and I can’t vote for the right person for such an important position of Power. I don’t have a say in who will lead that world Power affecting all Nations and Generations. This is profoundly undemocratic and needs to change. Regime Change for this world “system!”

    There is no True Democracy in this world yet, as defined in the Book, not the abbreviated online definition in the Merrium-Webster Website.

    The Book defines “Democracy” by these words, ideas and images.
    1. A THEORY of governance which, in it’s purest form, holds that the State should be controlled by ALL THE PEOPLE, each sharing EQUALLY in PRIVILEGES, DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES, and EACH PARTICIPATING in PERSON in the government, as in the
    CITY-STATES of ancient Greece.

    IN practice, CONTROL is vested in elective officers as Representatives who may be upheld or removed by THE PEOPLE.
    MASS of the people.


    WE have none of that in reality, as the people are slowly waking up from a deep sleep to understand we have a Plutocracy/Oligarchy system, and only an delusional, pseudo Democracy in the False American Dream.

    If I could vote as a Canadian, I would vote for Bernie. At the beginning of this election season, Bernie was already drawing big crowds but the media gave all the coverage for free to promote Trump, with hardly a mention of experienced and proven Bernie. He has been consistent on the issues and Principles all his political Life! But, it’s not over ’till it’s over!


    1. Hey Ray,
      What’s been disappointing is the unnecessary criticism directed at Sanders from people calling themselves progressive. I swear, it seems those progressives want to see Clinton win over Sanders; promote Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she’s your choice, but for Gawd sake stop bashing Sanders. Instead of taking the time for looking at Sanders’ strategy and realizing if he bashed militarism and called for deep cuts in military spending he’d be seen as “soft” and lose voters, some continue blindly trashing him and essentially helping Clinton. Bash Clinton because she deserves it but, man, realize bashing Sanders is so counterproductive. Ralph Nader and Oliver Stone are pulling for Bernie, his landslide victories recently have changed the momentum, and as more people become interested they’re learning the real differences between the two – more momentum for Sanders. Prepare to become pleasantly surprised… Thanks.


      1. The more I know about Clinton, the more I think she’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She’s as much as a Neo-Con War Hawk as the most extreme Republican, but she’s more nuanced, subtle and experienced in masking it.

        I would like to see a Sanders-Elizabeth Warren Democratic ticket. Even so, I find she is more hawkish on Israel than Bernie is.

        An interesting scenario. The Republicans deny Trump, and the Democrats deny Sanders the nomination, so both run as 3rd Party Independents. Then we would surely be living in interesting Times.


        1. Ray,
          With the extraordinary nature of the election thus far, it’s an interesting scenario, but Sanders finds Trump morally reprehensible. “The more I know about Clinton, the more I think she’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” I’ll go you one further Ray. She’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing. By the way, just before seeing your comments I watched an introductory lecture by Daniel Sheehan on his course “Rulers of the Realm” at University of California – Santa Cruz. My guess is you’re already aware of Mr. Sheehan, but enter this for the benefit of others who pass this way. Easy to find at YouTube channel “Romero Institute” – a profoundly revealing, disturbing, yet important lecture on the power elites who’ve run America from behind the scenes for well over 100 years. It puts into proper perspective who Sanders is taking on, and the real, high personal risk he’s voluntarily taken.

          Sheehan is an intellectual colossus whose talks providing virtually unknown historical facts are mind-blowing…

          Here’s the link. The first 14 minutes is an explanation of the class to students, so one can jump to 14 minute mark:


          1. Actually, Jerry, I was not aware of Daniel Sheehan until your post, but I looked up the lecture on YouTube and found it in under 1 minute.

            I thank God for the Internet and the people who made the idea a reality! Had to fast forward the 1st 25 minutes of his introduction and sales pitch for interested people to come, and got into the meat of what he wants to inform the people about ‘being there’ as those events happened. It caught my interest, and will watch the entire hour and 45 minute video introduction to his course. Thanks for the link. With his hair, he reminds me of a late blooming hippy! 🙂

            It promises to be a Buffet of information and facts for all Conspiracy enthusiasts.


            1. Ray,
              I’m surprised you were unaware of him… Sheehan in another lecture talked about being at Harvard and considering an International Relations/Politics course taught by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger told the 1st day students, “If you don’t agree with America overthrowing governments/countries, you’re in the wrong class”. At that point Sheehan recalled telling himself “I’m taking this class.” His lectures are a buffet for certain, not only for conspiracy theorists – but primarily for reality theorists. It came as a surprise Univ. of California-Santa Cruz allowed him to continue conveying to students the astonishing facts, with dozens of 2-hour lectures all available for free on YouTube. The man lays it all out, Ray.


  2. Jerry, thanks for raising the trade issue. As a former international trade professional in Brazil, I would like to address this issue but haven’t been able to determine how to do so. I recently drafted a post on regional and intra-regional trade blocks to provide readers with an idea of how the global trade system operates but scrapped my draft, believing that readers would not be interested.

    Any ideas on how I could contribute to this pressing issue?

    Readers interested in understanding the scope of trade blocks can check out my article on the subject at:


    1. Hello Rosaliene,
      Question: “Any ideas on how I could contribute to this pressing issue?”

      Answer: Take any articles and videos of Sanders on trade and disseminate as far and wide as possible, because if he doesn’t prevail over Clinton everyone in America will see a photo of her signing TPP into law – just as her husband signed NAFTA. Hillary Clinton is a close friend of Lynn Rothschild, her and Bill attend parties with Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Kissinger, etc., and they do the bidding of the world’s wealthiest multi-billionaires, for real. These are the extremely dangerous people who control the U.S. government, and have called the shots in initiating wars for decades. The only way to stop them from starting World War III is electing Sanders president.


Comments are closed.