When I hear folks railing against free trade agreements and that we should repeal them, what specifically are we proposing to have happen?

1. An embargo against trade?
2. Higher tariffs on imported goods?
3. A subsidy on some or all of American goods?

It is one thing to say you want to cancel trade agreements, but what do folks think will happen if those agreements are cancelled? Also, if we are thinking higher tariffs are the way to go, why would there be a different result then what happened following the imposition of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff, which was imposed by Republicans and, in fact, it was due to Herbert Hoover's support of such protectionist measures that he won the Presidency.

Kind of curious, since we have vox on the left and CNBC on the right critiquing the respective trade views of Bernie and Trump.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/10/trump-trade-plans-could-cause-global-recession-experts.html

Are these critiques fair or do you think the analysis misrepresents the views of the respective candidates?

Right is left and left is right again.

The Wall Street Journal, Fox News and even Donald Trump have been quick to jump to the defense of Bernie, offer him a forum to air his grievances against the Democratic Party, or argue that Bernie, not Hillary, would be the stronger candidate in the general election. Conversely, some traditionally liberal publications have called on Bernie to discontinue arguments that the nomination process is rigged or corrupt, which could lead voters in the end to simply abandon the party or the process. For example, here is one Bernie supporter on Vox explaining why in response to Bernie's rhetoric, he will be leaving the Democratic party forever:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11778158/shaun-king-democratic-party

The result of Bernie's revolution could very well be that it backfire as it causes folks like Shaun King to become disenchanted with the political process and decline to vote, or to simply cast Nader-like protest votes, which allow the radical right to consolidate power. Indeed, rather than focusing on the issues, Bernie's increasing willingness to make personal attacks against Hillary, and adopt right wing arguments on the ground "Donald Trump and other Republicans will seize on it,” suggests that in the end, Bernie's revolution is remarkable in how conventional it has ultimately become.

Of course, the downside of arguments that the political process is corrupt or that votes do not count is that the logical inference of such arguments is that one should not vote. Indeed, it creates this strange dynamic that losses are not legitimate and the only legitimate voters are Bernie votes.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/bernie_insults_voters_he_must_drop_notion_that_everyone_who_disagrees_with_him_is_corrupt_or_a_dupe/

Unfortunately, Sanders is also injecting one of the most wrong-headed and frankly embarrassing aspects of lefty thought into our discourse: The tendency to dismiss people who disagree with you as dupes who have been misled by a shadowy cabal of evil masterminds who brainwash the masses in order to perpetuate economic injustice.

This is the premise of Sanders’ “political revolution” argument: That the only reason voters hadn’t backed a socialist in the past is they never really had a chance to. But once they heard the good news about democratic socialism, they will throw off their shackles, embrace the truth, and usher in our socialist paradise.

That sort of rhetoric is harmless enough when it’s a pitch to win over voters. But now Sanders is losing the nomination. Rather than accepting the possibility that the voters heard his pitch and disagreed with him, however, Sanders has started to dismiss his loss as inauthentic, the product of shadowy forces misleading the easily duped voters rather an an authentic rejection, by the voters, of his ideas.

“I don’t want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils,” Sanders told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News on Sunday. “I want the American people to be voting for a vision of economic justice, of social justice, of environmental justice, of racial justice.”

Politico makes the same point you raise. Many of Bernie's backers are not really supporting him based on his proposals or his ideology, but because they are anti-establishment. If Bernie falls out of the race, then they have no where to go but to Trump. Bernie's support is based on his personality and his combativeness, rather than his actual proposals as noted in this article.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/why-bernies-bros-might-go-for-trump-213915

For all their divergent beliefs, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have each tapped into raw anger and resentment that is in some ways more emotive than ideological. The dangers for Hillary Clinton are clear. By most reasonable standards, she is as unimpeachably liberal as Humphrey was in 1968, yet she is equally distrusted by the anti-establishment left. She will need to guard against defections to an anti-establishment conservative who has proved every bit as deft as Wallace

And, like Carter in 1980, Clinton will enter the fall campaign with sky-high disapproval ratings, in no small part because her primary opponent spent a year casting her as an enemy of the common man. True, Trump is also wildly unpopular. But people tend to forget that Reagan was hardly more trusted when he unseated Carter than Trump is today—and that year, voters chose the candidate who represented a break with the status quo.

Citing survey data from earlier this year, political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels recently observed that “supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters … and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased. However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.” Achen and Bartels attribute Sanders’ appeal to identity politics, particularly given his disproportionate traction with “disaffected white men.” In this respect, the Sanders electorate is not dissimilar from a large portion of McCarthy’s and Kennedy’s supporters.

* * *
The historical lesson for Hillary Clinton is clear: Watch the left flank, because it could very well swing to the right.

New York Magazine recently published a quiz asking, "Who Said It, Donald Trump or a Men’s Rights Activist?"

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-an-mra.html

This quiz brings up the gender resentment that Donald Trump is catering to. When Trump attacks successful women whether they be Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Megyn Kelly or Susana Martinez, he is definitely not picking them based on their ideology. Rather, it is the fact that his supporters feel resentful of the success of high profile women. This is why Trump can brazenly act like a misogynist. Indeed, Trump's candidacy legitimizes the concerns of many men that women have it easy.

Even Trump's pandering to gain Bernie supporters is aimed at portraying the Democratic party as hostile to men by describing a man, Bernie Sanders, being oppressed by two women.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-debating-bernie-sanders

Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.

In the eyes of Trump and his supporters, the system is rigged against men. Mother Jones published an article discussing the men's right movement:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/warren-farrell-mens-rights-movement-feminism-misogyny-trolls

In 1993, Farrell published his full-throated manifesto, The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex. The book tackled a number of pressing issues affecting men. It also took some bizarre turns: At one point Farrell pondered whether the American male was the new "nigger." ("When slaves gave up their seats for whites, we called it subservience; when men give up their seats for women, we call it politeness." He took a sledgehammer to bedrock feminist ideals, claiming that women have themselves to blame for unequal pay, that domestic violence is a two-way street, and that government programs to benefit women only exacerbate inequality.

Farrell also argued that female sexual power was eclipsing any societal advantages that men might have. "The powerful woman doesn't feel the effect of her secretary's miniskirt power, cleavage power and flirtation power," he wrote. "Men do." And thanks to feminism, he argued, when women felt ill-treated they could now more easily pursue sexual-harassment or date rape charges—a notion that carries strong currency among today's men's rights activists. "No one has taught men to sue women for sexual trauma for saying 'yes,' then 'no,' then 'yes,'" Farrell opined. "Men were left with less than one option. They were still expected to initiate, but now, if they did it badly, they could go to jail."

The Myth of Male Power struck a chord among a new generation of would-be activists for whom "male disposability" became a rallying cry. "It's their bible," says Michael Kimmel, a sociologist who studies gender issues at New York's Stony Brook University. "It's really the foundational text."

* * *
Elam, who had been working as a drug and alcohol counselor, became convinced that his field was rife with anti-male bias. "We began to identify and treat masculinity as the disease and the cure for it was misandry—the hatred of men and boys," he would later write. "Men's groups devolved into sessions of shame, clinically applied and charged for by the hour." Elam began raising unsettling questions, such as why women checking into the clinic were routinely asked whether they'd been battered while men were asked whether they'd hit their wives. His colleagues' reaction was "incredibly hostile," he told me, which only stoked his rage. Eventually, he waded into the manosphere. While he was put off by the bigotry and conspiracy mongering, he believed the internet could help rally scattered men's rights activists into a formidable movement. In 2009, Elam, who was now working as a truck driver, launched A Voice for Men from a laptop in the cab of his 18-wheeler. "I aimed to attract the kind of people who could make a movement," he said, "women, people of color, gay men—anybody regardless of demographic, as long as they were aware of and concerned by issues of men."

While President Obama calls for a reduction in nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, Donald Trump entertained the idea of using nuclear weapons against ISIS as a way gaining their respect.

http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/trump-nuclear-weapons-isis/

In an interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann of Bloomberg, the Republican presidential frontrunner refused to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons in the war against ISIS.

“I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say. Even if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use them,” he said.

Trump also said he’s open to tactics like waterboarding and monitoring American mosques in the fight. He also talked about respect, which he sees as one of the biggest problems facing the US right now.

* * *
“They have to respect us,” Trump said in the interview. “They do not respect us at all and frankly they don’t respect a lot of things that are happening—not only our country, but they don’t respect other things.”

I think a lot of Hillary supporters are wrong to believe that many Bernie supporters would support her over Trump. A lot of Bernie's support is not based on his positions or ideology, but on the fact that like Trump, he is seen as an outsider and anti-establishment.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/die-hard-bernie-sanders-backers-see-fbi-as-answer-to-their-prayers/ar-BBtyaja?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

“If the D.N.C. wants to go ahead and put out the candidate who can’t win and we lose in November, it’s not because I didn’t vote,” she said. “It’s because they were looking out for their interests and not for the better interests of the country.”

Not everyone at Mr. Sanders’s rallies is dreading a Trump victory, however.

Victor Vizcarra, 48, of Los Angeles, said he would much prefer Mr. Trump to Mrs. Clinton. Though he said he disagreed with some of Mr. Trump’s policies, Mr. Vizcarra said he had watched “The Apprentice” and expected that a Trump presidency would be more exciting than a “boring” Clinton administration.

“A dark side of me wants to see what happens if Trump is in,” said Mr. Vizcarra, who works in information technology. “There is going to be some kind of change, and even if it’s like a Nazi-type change. People are so drama-filled. They want to see stuff like that happen. It’s like reality TV. You don’t want to just see everybody be happy with each other. You want to see someone fighting somebody.”

Source: Associated Press

FRESNO, Calif. — Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told California voters Friday that he can solve their water crisis, declaring, "There is no drought."

Speaking at a rally in Fresno, Calif., Trump accused state officials of denying water to Central Valley farmers so they can send it out to sea "to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish."

"We're going to solve your water problem. You have a water problem that is so insane. It is so ridiculous where they're taking the water and shoving it out to sea," Trump said to cheers at a rally that drew thousands.

Trump's rallies Friday in Fresno and San Diego drew vocal crowds of protesters, many carrying signs critical of Trump's plan to wall off the U.S. border with Mexico.


Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tells-california-there-is-no-drought/ar-BBtz6oK?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

---

How can there be a drought? You turn on the tap, and water comes out.

The networks are not just donating the money to charity. Rather, both Bernie and Donald Trump are very expressly demanding that this amount get paid as a condition for them to debate on a network. The charities are being chosen by Bernie/Trump, i.e., for women's health issues. Also, both Bernie/Trump are claiming credit for such donations.

How does this not count as income to both Bernie/Trump? Sure, they could deduct some of the money paid, since it is being given to charity, but it sounds like income nonetheless.

The Rolling Stones investigated claims that the harassing posts against Nevada's Democratic Chair were not from Bernie Sanders supporters at all, but operatives for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/pro-bernie-trolls-on-why-they-harassed-nevadas-democratic-chair-20160518

Pissed off Sanders supporters, watching the events unfold online from around the country, began circulating the personal contact information for state party chair Roberta Lange. As a result, Lange became the target of a barrage of harassment, including death threats and threats of violence sent via voicemail and text message. On Monday, the party shared many of those messages — notably, and perhaps regrettably, without redacting some of the senders' phone numbers.

Rolling Stone spoke to several of the men who sent Lange angry, menacing text messages to find out what was going through their heads as they pelted a stranger with epithets and threats, both veiled or explicit, to her and her family's safety, and to find out if — as some diehard Sanders supporters have suggested — they were actually Clinton campaign operatives out to smear Bernie.

They were not. All of the men we spoke to were genuine Sanders supporters, most with well-documented histories online of feeling the Bern. (Although only their first names are used below and their phone numbers have been redacted, we verified all of their identities.)

None of them were present at the convention; none of them even live in Nevada. They watched from their homes in Texas, Georgia and Utah, and felt the brazen theft they witnessed validated their actions. All of the men we spoke to reject the idea that their words could be interpreted as threats or harassment. And all of them were concerned about the media contorting their words. So, in their words — edited only for length and clarity — here is what they had to say for themselves.

Once again, the notion that a Donald Trump Presidency would not be incredibly destructive to progressives, minorities and women rights is destroyed by Trump's proposed dream sheet of potential nominees.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trumps-supreme-court-nominees-nod-towards-evangelicals

Sorry, Paul Clement. Your hopes of taking a seat on the US Supreme Court appear to be doomed. Clement is one of the brightest—and highest paid—conservative litigators in the Supreme Court firmament, having served as solicitor general for George W. Bush and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. He's also defended same-sex marriage and opposed Obamacare before the high court. But the legal luminary wasn't on the list of potential Supreme Court candidates released Wednesday by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Instead, Trump seems to have cut and pasted the names of most of his candidates (minus Clement) from dream-team lists publicly drawn up previously by the the Heritage Foundation, an influential, socially conservative think tank. Unlike Clement, who's long been considered a potential future justice, many of those on Trump's list are far more outspoken in their views on issues that resonate most with conservatives, particularly those in the evangelical wing who so far aren't all that enamored with the three-times-married Trump—people who might include Clement. Most of those on the short list hew closely to social conservatives' views on abortion and contraception, particularly when it comes to the contraceptive mandate created in the Affordable Care Act. Among them are:

Steven Colloton, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: Colloton was on a panel of judges that struck down the Obama administration's accommodations for religious organizations seeking an exemption from the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, saying that even the process of opting out of the mandate was a burden on their religious freedom. (Every other federal court to consider the issue found the regulations acceptable.) That decision enabled the Supreme Court to take up the issue. (It released an opinion this week sending the cases back to the lower courts to work out an agreement between the parties.) Colloton also worked for Ken Starr when he was the independent counsel investigating Bill Clinton during the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky affair.

William Pryor, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: Pryor was such a toxic nominee when President George W. Bush chose him for a federal judgeship in 2003 that Senate Democrats initially filibustered him. Pryor has referred to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision making abortion legal, as "creating a constitutional right to murder an unborn child." As Alabama's attorney general, he filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court supporting Texas's anti-gay sodomy law—he was the only state attorney general to do so. In 2014, he was on a panel of judges that barred the Obama administration from enforcing the contraceptive mandate against EWTN, a Catholic TV network. While on the court, he voted to continue a ban on volunteers feeding homeless people near the city hall in Orlando, Florida; upheld a restrictive Georgia voter ID law; and refused to block the use of opening prayers at government meetings in Cobb County, Georgia.