Electing Trump should be the primary goal of every American animal activist. It is more important than anything the animal movement has ever done.
The goal of the animal movement is to save animal lives and to end animal suffering.
But all of the work of all animal activists around the world only saves about a million animals per year, mostly dogs and cats.
That equals 50 million over the last 50 years. (A disheartening aside, that is about the number of animals that will be murdered in slaughterhouses during the next work shift.)
Most animal activists are shocked when I explain that Trump will save more animals each year than has the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years.
And it is about half the number that President Trump will save each year by abrogating our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, Colombia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Peru, etc.
Trade agreements kill animals. Hundreds of millions of animals every year die specifically because of our trade agreements, which make it cheaper and more profitable to produce animal corpses. Using Third World labor, US companies ship animals overseas to be tortured, slaughtered, butchered, and returned to the US for sale in American stores and restaurants. Trade agreements require that nations forbid Country of Origin labeling to prevent consumer boycotts. The Obama administration has already enacted such a ban on labeling. Trade agreements override US labor, environmental, and anti-cruelty laws. They make it impossible to ban live export for slaughter of for animal sacrifice in the Middle East, dooming hundreds of thousands of sheep, lambs, goats, and calves to imprisonment in ships’ holds for weeks before being cruelly murdered by religious zealots.
Trump opposes trade agreements. Hillary Clinton supports them.
And Trump has promised to repudiate and abrogate every trade agreement to which the US is a party.
If Trump does what he has promised, it will mean tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of animals saved every year.
It will be the most sweeping blow for animals in history.
And it will be accomplished by someone who does not really care about animals.
The animal movement has never had the possibility of accomplishing so much as it has with prospect of a Trump presidency.
Most animal activists who criticize Trump point to Trump’s serial killer sons who hunt big game and post horrific pics of themselves with poor creatures they have murdered for fun. And while Trump himself does not hunt, like Bernie Sanders, he condones and supports hunting.
Trump also owned a steak company and buys his wife furs.
At first glance, Trump seems an unlikely ally for animal activists, and an even more unlikely savior of animals.
But Trump, with the stroke of a pen, will save more animals than anyone in history.
Central to Trump’s campaign has been his opposition to trade agreements and his pledge to reject every one of them when elected. Under the Constitution, the president has the power and authority to cancel treaties, which trade agreements are. Trump will need no Congressional approval to cancel trade agreements, it is a power of the office.
Can anyone imagine Trump not exercising all the power at his disposal?
If animals are your priority, you have no choice but to vote for Donald Trump. But if you are like most people, you have priorities that are more important to you than the animals.
Most animal activists are politically progressive, and many are swept up in the euphoria of the prospect of electing the first woman as president. For those with such an agenda, the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps one of the greatest enemies that animals have is unimportant. Clinton’s support of trade agreements causes the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year, yet she manages to pay lip service to animal welfare concerns on her website and thereby silences many activists who do not take the time to carefully look at her policies or her record.
The litmus tests I employ for every election is which candidate will do the most for animals or which will cause animals the least suffering. Even Bernie supported hunting and dairy farms, so even the best candidate in the race was greatly flawed. Of Trump and Hillary, Trump has pledged to repudiate our trade agreements. When he does so, HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of animals will not be slaughtered each year. Think of that number! Every year Trump will save easily twice the number of animals as has been saved by the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years!
Armory Notes:
• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.
If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.
• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!
• Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.
• If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.
There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.
• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot
You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!
• Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty
If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.
Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!
Armory of the Revolution 
Absolutely incorrect.
LikeLike
How incredibly informative! I had no idea. Good thing you posted your brilliant analysis.
LikeLike
With all due respect, I do not agree with your article. It’s true that perhaps, SOME animals — those used for food and shipped overseas alive to be killed, processed and sent back — COULD benefit. But don’t you think it’s more likely that Trump will find a way to open more slaughterhouses here in U.S. so as not to be forced to ship those animas overseas at all, thereby creating more jobs here? How does this save animals?
And what about when Sarah Palin and Trump’s sons take over the Dept of the Interior? Or when counless wild animals are indirectly killed due to the anti-animal policies of a Trump dictatorship? We can expect laying oil pipelines on public lands, increased urban development, fracking, more roads and highways, drilling in national parks, increased offshore oil drilling to name a few. This administration will make sure that the 1/3 of all wildlife that is left on the planet is wiped out. Sorry, but I don’t think having Trump/Pence in the highest office in the land is remotely good for animals in any way.
LikeLike
Like I said earlier I was still digesting this post ad yes, some of it makes sense. The very idea our US animals were being shipped and processed in China made me sick. I’ve been outspoken on that for a while now. There is another side to the Trump presidency… http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/11/11/what-trumps-triumph-means-wildlife?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2016-11-11
LikeLike
If Trump was Pro Animal Welfare .. he wouldn’t have stacked his cabinet with Anti Animal Welfare members, all or most of all 64 members he has chosen are Anti Animal Welfare with Forrest Lucas leading the pack .. i fear these are very dark days ahead for all our animals, both wild and domestic and the war against animal cruelty to all animals has becomes 10 times worse.
FACT: Trump’s Agriculture Advisory Committee members are staunch PRO SLAUGHTER/ANTI ANIMAL WELFARE individuals..
FACT: Forrest Lucas is high on Trump’s list to be appointed as the Secretary of Agriculture or the Department of Interior.
FACT: Forrest Lucas is behind (and creator of) Protect the Harvest.
FACT: Protect the Harvest IS Pro slaughter and against any animal welfare including being opposed to establishing felony level penalties for malicious cruelty against horses, dogs and cats. This group supports puppymills and pitbull fighting, gestation crates for swine and cages for poultry. They not only want to bring back horse slaughter to US soil but they want to have horsemeat sold in US grocery stores for human consumption as another source of meat ( american horses are not raised as a food animal and are given all kinds of drugs and medications that are banned world wide from being used in food producing animals for human consumption, ALL products on the market for equines state in bold, capital letters “Not For Use In Horses Intended For Human Consumption”, this includes fly spray, wormers, shampoos, wound sprays and ointments, hoof products and vaccines )
FACT: Other EXTREMELY vocal pro slaughter individuals, who are being considered for CABINET positions, are: Mary Fallin – Governor of Oklahoma, she is ready for defunding to not be included in the upcoming 2018 Federal Budget so that Oklahoma may start horse slaughter; Cynthia Loomis – House of Rep. (WY) who was quoted saying horse slaughter is a “lovely and peaceful euthanasia” for the wild mustangs/burros being held in long-term holding facilities; Sid Miller – Texas Agriculture Commissioner who tried twice to make it legal in the State of Texas to sell horse meat for human consumption; Terry Barnstead – Governor of Iowa, who was the first governor to sign into law an “ag-gag” order that in effect punishes whistle blowers and gives factory farmers the green light over animal welfare and employee safety; and Bruce Rastetter – factory farmer millionaire of Iowa (who is reportedly the front runner for Department of Agriculture Secretary over Sid)…He made his money with large scale hog factory farms and his brother is the head of a company which builds the hog gestation crates.
LikeLike
You obviously only read the title of my article. I never suggested that Trump was in favor of animal welfare. Quite the opposite. I observed that he does not care about animals, and that the benefit to animals of a Trump presidency would be unintentional. However, that unintentional benefit would exceed any intentional efforts by Hillary Clinton.
The laundry list of animal abusers you have cited is no worse than those in Obama’s administration, nor worse than Hillary choice to lead her transition team, Ken Salazar. Trump, Hillary, and even Bernie, support animal agriculture. The choice in politicians is always which will do the least harm to animals. Hillary was the status quo, and the status quo is the worst for animals in human history. It can only get better from here, or it can trigger political revolution. The animals will do better with either.
LikeLike
Your premise offers some good points, but I think that what may be allowed to be done to animals IN this country may provide an unhappy counterbalance to any good his trade deals may create regarding the animals saved by blocking their export. Factory farms, puppy and kitten mills, horse slaughter, extermination of wild horse herds or the sake or gas exploration and cattle grazing… all profitable, and fit his theory that if it makes money, it’s good. Animals may become unwilling victims of “making America great again”. America may not be so great for animals. I hope I’m wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m still digesting this. In a strange way, it kinda makes sense. I supported Bernie 100%, voted for Jill. People need to read this with an open mind and think abut it. Stop the knee jerk reactions.
LikeLike
Pingback: Remembrance Day | Lorelle Taylor
Have you completely lost the plot?
LikeLike
In this moment of serious shock, it’s good to find these bright spots and hold on to them. Let’s hope Trump can’t unite his own party (very unlikely he could) and that not much of anything passes the legislature. For his executive orders, the dismantling of Obamacare and corrupt trade deals would be a boon for this country, and as RV says, for animal lives. Just think what could happen if meat prices soar, and that tofu and seitan looks like a much better protein choice to working class families!
The Supreme Court placement(s) is another, more frightening issue… Hold on to yer hats for that one.
LikeLike
I wish I could be eloquent right now. But your article killed my ability to do so. Do you forget it’s PEOPLE who are fighting for animals???! How do you expect LGBTQ’s to feel safe enough to even hold a sign??! We are ALREADY getting HATRED inflicted on us by Trump supporters; how do you expect blacks and brown to show up for protests when they houses are being torn down by their white supremacists neighbors and their cars are being spray painted with Trumps name? Do us all a favor and STOP writing.
LikeLike
Blaming all Trump supports for the actions of a few of them makes no more sense than blaming all of any segment of the populatoin for the actions of a few of them. Double standard don’t work for anyone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet Trump is surrounding himself with proponents for returning horse slaughter for human consumption to American soil…as well as those that fight legislation protecting animals from cruel and inhumane treatment and favor ag gag laws as cabinet members for his administration ..
LikeLike
So you think that America will just stop participating in international trade under Trump? Do you have any idea how stupid that is? How much would that hurt Trump’s wealthy friends? You know that economic and trade sanctions are imposed on countries as punishments, right? Why on Earth would America impose trade sanctions on itself? Like, I can’t even begin to tell you how unworkable that would be and likely to have little or no effect on animal abuse. Honestly, this is why people don’t take vegans seriously, because articles like this and the people saying they agree with your logic make us look like we are all as incapable of critical thought as you are.
“Oh, he campaigned on this promise!” Yeah, and? He campaigned on a wall on the Mexican border he won’t be able to put up. He campaigned on stopping Muslims from entering the country which he won’t be able to do according to America’s constitution. He campaigned on “bringing jobs back” which won’t be possible due to global economics and automation. Like, honestly, articles like this are right in Trump’s alternate reality where the facts and critical thought don’t matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump will be able to unilaterally renege on trade agreements. Border walls, mass deportations, etc, would require Congressional action.
LikeLike
Pingback: Hillary Is Running a Scam on Animal Activists | Armory of the Revolution
Pingback: How should vegans vote this November? – Episode 56 | The Commentist
Can you provide cites to the actual statistics you reference? Since the United States Department of Agriculture reports that 9 BILLION animals are slaughtered every year in the United States, it is difficult to believe that US companies are finding it difficult to slaughter animals here. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html
LikeLike
I will be happy to dig out the statistics. But you are mistaken if you think that the problem is not being able to find slaughter facilities or slaughter companies in the US. What is occurring is that American wholesalers are purchasing foreign produced meat at prices below those that domestic producers must charge.
Animals die under trade agreements because animal corpses are cheaper to produce using Third World labor. Cheaper production costs mean lower prices and increased demand. Ending trade agreements will raise costs, increase prices, and drive down demand. Imported corpses will face tariffs, Country of Origin labeling, and taxes to protect American producers. Domestic slaughter will decrease, as some foreign markets will be closed to US exporters, further increasing prices and reducing supply.
Trump’s objections to trade agreements are twofold. Firstly, they do not prohibit currency manipulation, which has beleaguered our trade with China. Secondly, they force US labor to compete with Third World labor.
As animal corpses are cheaper under our trade agreements because of Third World labor, any renegotiation of our trade deals to comport with Trump’s positions would necessarily benefit animals, even if unintentionally.
By ending trade agreements, or even renegotiating them, Trump will save more animals than anyone in history ever has. And about twenty times the number that the animals movement has saved over the last hundred years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What difference will it make ??? We are all doomed, both human and animal, when Trump starts a nuclear war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is absurd. Trump is far less likely to start a war than is Hillary. She has bragged that she would bomb Iran, and is advocating a no-fly zone in Syria, which Putin has said would be an act of war against Russia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, please dig out statistics because the USDA’s figures show that billions of corpses are being produced here in the U.S. and if you look at the revenues of some of our largest U.S. meat producers, they are doing very well so they are able to sell their meat at a profit despite trade agreements.
LikeLike
Of course they are. It is profitable for Big Ag to produce corpses even if they are not consumed by people. Government subsidies for the slaughter industries makes them immune from many of the uncertainties of markets. Wholesalers and distributors, however, can buy imported corpses cheaper than then can be purchased from domestic producers. Were trade agreements to be rejected, those wholesalers and distributors would be forced to buy from domestic sources, increasing their costs and driving up prices to retailers, resulting in increased prices to consumes and decreases in consumption.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your trade agreements comments make sense. However, what about the people in other countries who depend on livestock from the USA for survival? What about the US farmer who depends on selling livestock for survival?
I support Trump. I just don’t think you are looking at the whole picture.
LikeLike
Personally, I do not give a damn about anyone who murders animals for a living.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m from South Africa, and we were forced to accept the dumping of American chicken, under trade agreements starting in Feb 2016.
.
South Africa’s objection has been that USA chicken doesn’t meet our health standards.
That should concern Americans, that your health standards don’t measure up to health standards in an African country.
.
What’s more concerning is that now America, wants to export it’s live chicken to China for cheaper processing, which has even lower health standards, and then the processed parts will be reshipped to whichever market they go to. [Enjoy the melamine is those chicken nuggets.]
.
What they are dumping on us in South Africa, are the leg and thigh (Quarter chicken), which American’s apparently won’t consume. The American market only consumes, wings and breasts.
.
We have our own large and very competitive chicken industry.
.
Our supermarket retail price for Chicken Breast (The stuff American’s desire) in SA is R 31.99 per KG, and your dumped American legs and thighs, are landing at a cost of R 31.99, so apart from being unwanted, it’s also more expensive than what we produce ourselves.
.
You can read more on it here:
http://www.fin24.com/Economy/this-is-what-us-agoa-chicken-looks-when-it-comes-to-sa-20160424
LikeLike
One, he won’t abrogte the trade agreements (betcha). Two, if he does, new ones will be put in place that kill just as many non-human (and human) animals. Electing a Trump to such powerful position is a ridiculous way to try to save animals. A lot more needs to happen in order to save animals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Central to Trump’s campaign has been his opposition to trade agreements and his pledge to reject them if elected. As president, Trump would have the constitutional power and authority to do so. I believe the chances that he would not avail himself of the opportunity to exercise the power to impose his will on the US government are nil.
Trump’s primary objection to our current trade agreements is that they force American labor to compete with Third World labor. That is also the reason that animals corpses are cheaper to produce in Third World countries than in the US. And that is the driving force that causes the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals every year under our trade agreements. Whether Trump summarily rejects those agreements or forces them to be renegotiated with protections for the American workforce, the result will be the same for the animals. Hundreds of millions fewer will be murdered every year.
LikeLike
So he abrogates the trade agreements. What about horse slaughter? What about puppy mills? What about the mustangs? The GOP platform is to sell federal lands to states and that means more ranchers pushing cattle out.
I don’t think Trump is against horse slaughter as it is ‘business’ and anything with profit is good.
I am not saying HIllary is much differently sadly, two sides of the same corrupt coin.
LikeLike
What power to annul these trade agreements would the president have? Surely that would be subject to Congress and the Senate oversight. Likewise to replace these trade agreement with new or replacement standards, say like a return to import tariffs, would again require Congress and Senate involvement.
LikeLike
I like your augument which has logic and truth. But unpeel the onion a bit more. The biggest factor in making meat cheap is agricultural subsidies for growing animal feed. Trade issues are much less important. If you want a a fundamental economic solution the applying the Henry George idea of Land value tax and externality taxes in the damage of oil and chemicals would fundamentally rebalanced food production away from meat. It would make land use more efficient and mean lots of land would return to nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No argument at all, but it remains a political impossibility at present. For such an approach, the influence of capitalism and industries would have to be totally eliminated through bans on private funding of campaigns and gifts to public officials. Until then, the oligarchy rules.
LikeLike
I think lack of knowledge and understanding of Georgist Economics, and then the legal framework and independence of each federal state, are more likely to stand in the way of implementation in the USA.
.
Capitalism isn’t the problem, it’s that you don’t actually have Capitalism, you have what I call Neo-Feudalism, and even if you did have Capitalism, the theoretical model of Capitalism didn’t consider or address Monopoly.
.
George’s ideas, and given that he wrote in 1879 before modern industrialisation and mass production had kicked in, is really a rough outline of a simple but effective, Reformation of Capitalism. He focused on the monopoly of Economic Land, but his ideas with some tweaking, should also apply to industry monopolies, like the Banks, Insurance, Manufacturers, Retailers, etc., to ensure not only “a free market”, but an economically efficient market.
.
LikeLike
One of his quotes is among my favorites: “There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.”
LikeLike
It is interesting to read how some “pro-Trumper” (both individual people and newspapers) attempt to justify Trumps sons and their actions, and paint them in such an amazingly good light! Just as a reminder and example: Pedophiles (even though we are not talking about pedophiles here) so very often have a very good standing in society, seem to help others, seem to be perfectly normal and kind fathers, etc…! Just to give you an idea that the Trumps are not at all that kind, great, benevolent, etc!
LikeLike
I urge you to actually read the article before commenting. You are embarrassing yourself. None of the objections you raise are in the article.
LikeLike
Somehow, it is quite difficult to associate Trump with kindness to animals when they kill beautiful ones for “sport” and the daughter uses fur on her clothing line. That is clearly what I base my opinion on where that family is concerned. To me, shooting to kill something that you are looking directly in it’s eyes indicates extreme cruelty and extreme bad character. There is no justification to me after seeing their smiling faces in photos.
LikeLike
Or another one:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/hunting-animals-just-like-golf-8477026
LikeLike
Had you actually digested the article instead of scrolling down to comment you would know that I not only acknowledge that Trump does not care about animals, but I recite all the reasons he would appear to be a poor choice for an animal savior. The point of the article is that animals will benefit from a Trump presidency even though none of the advantages to animasl are his intention.
LikeLike
And another one (of many):
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/09/07/animals-vote-select-trump/89977982/
LikeLike
Had you actually digested the article instead of scrolling down to comment you would know that I not only acknowledge that Trump does not care about animals, but I recite all the reasons he would appear to be a poor choice for an animal savior. The point of the article is that animals will benefit from a Trump presidency even though none of the advantages to animals are his intention.
LikeLike
Just one (of so many) articles about how much the Trumps could not care less about animal welfare and/or animal rights:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/08/06/the-trump-sons-go-hunting-again-will-more-trophy-photos-follow/
LikeLike
Had you actually digested the article instead of scrolling down to comment you would know that I not only acknowledge that Trump does not care about animals, but I recite all the reasons he would appear to be a poor choice for an animal savior. The point of the article is that animals will benefit from a Trump presidency even though none of the advantages to animasl are his intention.
LikeLike
TRUMP’S SONS GO TROPHY HUNTING IN AFRICA AND TRUMP (THE IDIOT WHO WANTS TO BECOME PRESIDENT) SAYS HE IS PROUD OF HIS SONS AND THST THEY ARE GOOD “SHOTS”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Did you just scroll down to comment without reading the article? I discuss his sons being serial killers. I mention Trump supporting hunting (as do Hillary and Bernie Sanders). My support for Trump has nothing to do with his personal positions or beliefs except to the extent that they affect animals. Please take a moment to actually read the article.
LikeLike
Plus he will sell off our public lands to the highest bidder and wildlife will be slaughtered!
Biggest load of crap I ever seen.
LikeLike
Your ignorance is profound. For Trump to do anything beyond issue Executive Orders and reject trade agreements would require actions of Congress. Congress, however, will be divided, with Republicans controlling the House and Democrats the Senate. Nothing controversial will reach the president’s desk. No border wall, no mass deporations, no selling of federal lands. You are spouting establishment propaganda for the Hillary campaign.
LikeLike
The GOP platform supports selling off Federal Land. If Trump is elected and there is a GOP Congress you can kiss it good bye.
Just look at what happened in Oregon.
LikeLike
We have to endure Trump to win the 2018 midterms, and with them the ability to control reapportionment in 2020. If Trump is president, we will nominate and elect a progressive in 2020. If Hillary is in office, the Republicans will sweep the 2018 midterms, control reapportionment in 2020, and Hillary will be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
LikeLike
No he won’t! All those animals will just be slaughtered in the US instead!
LikeLike
Animals die under trade agreements because animal corpses are cheaper to produce using Third World labor. Cheaper production costs mean lower prices and increased demand. Ending trade agreements will raise costs, increase prices, and drive down demand. Imported corpses will face tariffs, Country of Origin labeling, and taxes to protect American producers. Domestic slaughter will decrease, as some foreign markets will be closed to US exporters, further increasing prices and reducing supply. The estimates of animals saved by ending all our trade policies are in the hundreds of millions of animals annually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you provide a cite to the statistics that you reference about the number of animals that will be saved by ending current trade policies?
LikeLike
National Pork Producers Council, The National Chicken Council, The United States Cattleman’s Association, and the Office of the US Trade Representative have all made estimates of the number of animals imported and exported pursuant to our trade agreements, in the hundreds of millions annually. None of those estimate include sea creatures, which would run into the billions annually.
LikeLike
He’s too mentally,and emotionally unstable to do anything for anyone.Malignant narcissists never go out of their way for causes that others in a society consider important.They,simply,don’t have the capacity to care.
LikeLike
Central to Trump’s campaign has been his opposition to trade agreements and his pledge to reject them if elected. As president, Trump would have the constitutional power and authority to do so. I believe the chances that he would not avail himself of the opportunity to exercise the power to impose his will on the US government are nil.
LikeLike
Pamela, I have never heard anyone but you express criticism for him being mentally and emotionally unstable! I am sorry that somehow you have formed this very unique view! Someone with his accomplishments, well beyond dispute, could hardly be anything but the very opposite!
LikeLike
Do you live in a bubble?
LikeLike
The fuck? Half the things stated here aren’t even true. Like the country of origin labeling. I used to work for a manufacturer that shipped product to countries around the world and there isn’t a single one that doesn’t require labeling for export/import. This is a really pathetic excuse for an “article.”
LikeLike
Last year, the Congress repealed Country of Origin labeling for meat, as requested by the Obama administration. Before you accuse me of publishing things that aren’t true, do a little research.
LikeLike
What does that have to do with Trade Agreements and why do you assume Trade Agreements automatically prevent Country of Origin labeling?
You make way too many assumptions without a single assurance. Trump is an overt liar and lacks principles.
LikeLike
We already have repealed Country of Origin labeling for meat after Canada complained to the World Trade organization (WTO). The Obama administration requested the repeal by Congress last year and Obama signed the bill in December.
What assumptions are you referring to?
And what has Trump being a liar or lacking principles to do with this?
LikeLike
Question. I guess I am surprised that someone who raised his kids as trophy hunters would be good on these issues. Besides trade, do you have any other examples of where he shares your values.
LikeLike
Trump and I have little in common besides trade policy. He has made numerous statements decrying the influence of lobbyists and special interests, but he has not gone so far as to call for bans on bribery or private financing of campaigns.
LikeLike
If you look at other posts on this alt-right blog, it is clear that Roland generally shares Trump’s xenophobic, and especially anti-Muslim, agenda. TPP is not the issue: it will probably be decided during the lame duck session before the next president takes office. If it fails this year, it is unlikely that Clinton, who now opposes TPP, would be able to get it passed even if she reverses her position, so there is no significant difference between Trump and Clinton on this issue.
Trade agreements are not all bad for animals. CITES has been critical in protecting wildlife. The Clinton Foundation has worked to support anti-poaching activities under CITES. Britain’s exit from the European Union will have the effect of nullifying enforcement of EU animal protection agreements. The rise of the alt-right in Europe and in the US does not help either farm animals or wildlife.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol! Alt-right? As a Marxist, I find that hilarious!
CITES is not a trade agreement, BTW.
Britain leaving the UK only affects the EU’s position with Britain, nothing to do with EU animal protection agreements within the EU.
LikeLike
I do not believe in this article . No politicians has ever pay attention into the life of animals including Trump. U.S. Is not a country sent animals over sea as Australia . Trump does not appears as a compassionate person to have empathy for animals . Please stop fooling people
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one is fooling anyone. Trump will reject our trade deals, which will result in saving the lives of hundreds of millions of animals every year he is president.
LikeLike
The author is not saying that Trump is for the animals or doing anything animal related in that regard….he is only referring to the fact that by repealing the trade agreements with the mentioned countries, these animal lives will be saved. It is an effect of negating these trade agreements….we know Trump is not doing it for the animals of course, he is just keeping the “power” and business in this country and will therefore abnegate these trade agreements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Grace!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Species and Class.
LikeLike
I think you are way off course here! Trump is a fascist who is likely to drag us into WWIII; as for what he says he will do, he is a serially failing businessman who will say anything the masses want to hear in order to get elected; and he has pledged to remove all environmental controls and open up all public lands to oil, tracking, mining and hunting so our wildlife will be slaughtered on a huge scale. A Trump presidency is the worst thing that can happen for every species on this planet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Susan, you are drinking the Hillary Kool-Aid. Trump is not a fascist. He is a populist. Fascism isn’t blow-hard rhetoric, it is the merger of state and corporate power, according to Benito Mussolini. As such, Hillary and Obama are much more fascist than is Trump.
As for World War III, are you not paying attention to whom is the warmonger in this race? Hillary’s foreign policy is interventionist and belligerent, and is indistinguishable from that of Dick Cheney or Henry Kissinger. She has already threatened to bomb Iran and threatened war with Russia.
Trump, on the other hand, wants peace through strength.
Further, Trump has over 200 businesses. That only four went bk is an impressive track record.
There is no doubt that the Republicans would abolish the EPA, sell off federal lands, open National Parks to mining, hunting, and drilling, etc. IF THEY COULD. Nothing of the sort can possibly occur, as nothing controversial will pass a divided Congress. No border wall, no mass deportations, and no dismantling of environmental protections.
Trump will save hundreds of millions of animals by rejecting trade agreements. More animals than there are people in the country! Every year he is in office!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you should read this blog more carefully before spewing the usual cliché jargon, the writer is saying trump’s decisions will inadvertently be good for animals and I agree. I am just so sick of everyone pushing for Hillary, the Madam Bovary of our time, and labeling trump a fascist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He spoke in Flint Michigan about their water quality and the very next day speaking about his plan for the economy said he would cut all environmental regulations. Susan, you are 100% right. My only exception is I believe we already have a fascist government. CEO’s cause most cancer, pollute our water, foul our air, sever our mountain tops, steal, cause poverty, war, terrorists, own the media, courts, destroy the land, frack. I feel the democrats will keep Hillary to the left although the CEO’s will pull on her strings too. They are the real terrorists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump and the Republicans will be unable to cut any environmental regulations, just as they will be unable to build a border wall. Congress will be divided, as it has been under Obama. Neither Trump nor Hillary will be able to get anything controversial to their desks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His vice president nominee has voted to stop funding our Wild Mustangs and his pick for secretary of the Interior, Lucus, is an avid hunter, and big promoter of hunting even Wild Mustangs to control populations. Yes, your right his sons and buying fur is another disqualifying point.
LikeLike
There is no doubt that the Republicans would abolish the EPA, sell off federal lands, open National Parks to mining, hunting, and drilling, etc. IF THEY COULD. Nothing of the sort can possibly occur, as nothing controversial will pass a divided Congress. No border wall, no mass deportations, and no dismantling of environmental protections.
Trump will save hundreds of millions of animals by rejecting trade agreements. More animals than there are people in the country! Every year he is in office!
LikeLiked by 1 person