In 1995 the United States normalized relations with former enemy Vietnam. This week, President Obama announced he would lift the arms embargo with Vietnam, allowing for sales of military equipment. All sales would still have to be approved by Congress. This next step in relations was defined by President Obama stating, “hearts can change and peace is possible.” In 2014 restrictions were eased to allow maritime surveillance and security equipment to be purchased. Strengthening ties with a former enemy, President Obama said it had nothing to do with China and was just another step in normalizing relations.
The move to allow future arms sales, if it has nothing to do with China then what? Normalizing ECONOMIC relations? The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement includes Vietnam. It hasn’t been approved by Congress yet, but this move just another piece in the puzzle, and another nail in our economic coffin.
Is it time for Sanders and Clinton to soften their tones? The upcoming California and New Jersey primaries are important for both Democratic candidates. Clinton can seal the deal with wins and Sanders needs landslides to make his case for the nomination. Sanders has been tough on Clinton as has Clinton on Sanders. While the Democratic nomination drags on Trump had began to sharpen his attacks on the front-runner Clinton. With a slim chance at securing the nomination should Sanders soften his tone? He has been very critical of Clinton on trade, the minimum wage and her support of war. Continuing the harsh tone does it only benefit Trump? Trump leading in some polls. another indication it may be time to play nice.
Sanders has come a long way in his attempt to win the nomination. Softening the blows will hurt him and he can ill afford lost opportunity. With the last of the primaries coming up we will know by the tone if Sanders really believes he can win.
The SEIU held their convention yesterday in Detroit. The main speaker at the convention, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The SEIU endorsed Clinton back in November so Clinton was on friendly turf.
For the record I am not a member of the SEIU and I did not attend the convention.
Via Twitter I was able to read the excitement at the convention and the hash-tags were a plenty coming from the site. One tweet that caught my eye, not the content but the profile picture of the tweeter, 1199SEIU Caregivers. Their profile picture:
Above is what it read and essentially the layout of the profile picture. What is wrong with this picture???????????? As with the 12 question marks I wrote, that would be the real minimum wage amount she supports, $12 an hour. So as the fight for 15 goes on with the support of 1199 SEIU they support the candidate Hillary Clinton and her $12 an hour agenda.
“she’s fighting for us” another tweet from the convention dares me to ask, do you know what she’s fighting for? As obviously with the $15 an hour fight you are waging you are behind the WRONG CANDIDATE,
You may want to update your profile picture to match the positions and candidates you support.
Borders, border walls and the Presidential election. Donald Trump is proposing to build a wall on the Mexican border, while Sanders is looking to build bridges. Clinton, more likely than not will tow the line of the current Obama Administration policies. Fast track for those illegal immigrants already here has been a hot button issue for some time. What candidate is more in line with the current behavior of the White House in regard to protecting our borders? Trump, Clinton or Sanders?
Donald Trumps proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border has been met with anger from opponents. Calling Trump racist, the slur that has been used by many within our borders and outside them. But it is Donald Trump who is most in line with our current practices toward migrants from the south. Since the Bush Administration the United States has been assisting Mexico with its southern border. Increasing support after 2014’s crisis of unaccompanied children migrating to the United States. The U.S. has pressured Mexico to protect its southern border and is helping, with support in the form of training, and equipment. Today, Mexico’s border with its southern neighbors is militarized retreating some 100 miles from the border with the use of militarized check points. From 2004-2015 the U.S. has spent $2.5 billion on Mexico’s effort to control their southern border.
Hypocrisy from our liberal and some conservative leaders? Congressional approval for the $2.5 billion to Mexico means all our elected in Washington has had their hands in this and are aware, including Sanders. And Mexico, who cries foul in regard to Trumps proposed border wall? Do as you say Mexico! And tear down your barriers. As for Trump, if he’s CRAZY what do we call the last 2 presidents?
Early voting, good or bad for democracy? Today, we are witnessing a historic push back against the establishment. Hillary Clinton being the sure thing Democratic nomination no longer looks like a sure thing. (Though the Democratic Party would like you to believe differently). Way back when Bernie Sanders first declared he had little name recognition. Clinton was the anointed candidate from the beginning with support from all in the Democratic Party. Winding down the last of the primaries, Sanders has won enough delegates to still be in position to win the nomination (very small chance). Sanders has done well on the day of voting. Connecting to the people with his message, and winning despite poll numbers (Michigan).
Early voting, the issue, are getting uneducated votes. 18 months ago who outside really knew and understood the platform of Bernie Sanders? With single digit support to start the election he was considered a fringe candidate. So the early voters cast their ballots up to 45 days before election day depending on your state. with limited to no information on lesser known candidates. Does the early voting change projections by the media? One assumes that the counting hasn’t begun and information on early voting is not leaked. But what of polling? Can a poll ask the right questions and get a cross-section of early voters? Sure can!
Access and getting people to vote is the goal for early voting. And YES, participation is and always should be a goal. How we vote and when? This is what needs to be addressed. National voting standards also needs to be an objective. Just getting someone to vote shouldn’t be the only goal. Informed voters also should be an objective. As time moves on we are discovering that the more information a voter has they tend to lean away from the anointed of the party. Would Sanders have benefitted from no early voting? Does the early voter have any buyers remorse? So is early voting bad for democracy? Yes and No. What do you think?