Bernie Sanders for President... [Archive] - HungAngels

buttslinger

08-27-2015, 06:40 PM

After ABBA split up Benny Andersson and Agnetha Faltsog remained in Sweden but Bjorn Ulvaeus lived in London for many years, and Anni-Frid Lyngstad has lived in Switzerland for years. Nevertheless, Sweden still exists as a European state. Funny old world, 'innit?

I wholeheartedly apologize for my American sense of humour, Stavros, I guess my point was London has a bigger population than Sweden. Sweden has a two year mandatory stretch in their Military. They had to change their laws to keep Muslim rapists and murders from flooding across their borders.
I am sure there is a tiny spot in reality for American Schools and Medical Facilities to surpass even my imagination, but the President can't just wave his hand and make it happen, the American people would have to get up off their fat asses and basically do it themselves. Intent is not enough. Top notch private schools and spectacular medical service is available if you have the CASH, but there are a limited supply of really fine teachers and doctors. So even if education and healthcare is "free" you still get what you pay for.

♫ ......you are the dancing queen, young and sweet, only seventeen.......♫

broncofan

08-27-2015, 08:20 PM

I wholeheartedly apologize for my American sense of humour,
Don't blame us for that.

buttslinger

08-27-2015, 09:28 PM

Don't blame us for that.

I'd like to apologize to Stavros, the entire Denver Broncos organization, the English, the Afro-Americans, all the Americans, Steve Grooby, the Asians, the Fox News organization, anyone who may or may not be African/Asian, two of the Kardashians, some ugly trannys, Sweden, ABBA, IKEA, and I also apologize for talking up Robert Griffin III.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEfjK7HZWDE

broncofan

08-27-2015, 09:36 PM

I also apologize for talking up Robert Griffin III.

By far the most important one. And I apologize for Johnny Manziel:).

Anyhow, it looks like Bernie has a bit more support than I thought. I still don't think he will ever have a broad enough base of support to win, but he's doing better than I thought he would.

I also think it would be difficult to manage a socialist system in a country this large, with both state and federal jurisdictions and the problems that creates for uniform administration of social programs. But I do think it's a more fair system than the one we have here and I would like to see reforms moving in that direction. Yet for the sake of pragmatism and to avoid the worst possible outcome, I would support whoever is most electable in the general election. I don't think that's Bernie.

trish

08-27-2015, 10:10 PM

As David Axelrod has recently said ( and I paraphrase): Iowa and New Hampshire are just the bathing suit competition. People tend to get weeded out as we move on to the talent portion of the contest.

buttslinger

08-27-2015, 10:12 PM

.....Anyhow, it looks like Bernie has a bit more support than I thought. I still don't think he will ever have a broad enough base of support to win.....

Anyone with a "Hung Angels" heart and soul would like to see the country move towards a more Bernie-type philosophy, he probably could have pulled it off in 2008, but there was this young black phenom named Barack Obama who was going to change the World. In the stranger than fiction file there is this guy named Donald Trump who may do more to advance the Democratic cause than Bernie Sanders. You can't make this stuff up.

Stavros

08-27-2015, 11:21 PM

I wholeheartedly apologize for my American sense of humour, Stavros, I guess my point was London has a bigger population than Sweden. Sweden has a two year mandatory stretch in their Military. They had to change their laws to keep Muslim rapists and murders from flooding across their borders.

I am not sure abut your sense of humour, or your knowledge of recent events. Thus:

1) Compulsory military conscription ended in Sweden in 2010.

2) the myth of the beastly Muslim rapist in Sweden, Norway and Denmark might be something you find in the hysterical screeds of Pamela Gellar, but are not met with in the real world. The problem in Sweden (as Julian Assange has discovered) where the statistics of rape appear to show that between 2003 and 2010 the number of cases trebled, is that Sweden revised its definition of rape to include non-violent acts and also records rape by incident so that, for example, if a woman claims to have been raped once a week by her husband that is recorded not as a rape, but 52 incidences of rape. There is no doubt that Muslims have been found guilty of rape, just as there is no doubt that the statistical evidence in Sweden is difficult to unravel with the broader definition but appears to show no dramatic incidence of the crime. You can, if you want to, acquaint yourself with the discussions below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

The end of military service is discussed here:
http://www.thelocal.se/20100701/27548

AshlynCreamher

08-28-2015, 01:08 AM

If old man Sanders could do the things I've listed below - I would vote for him :)

Build a wall
Deport the Illegals
Reform our Free Trade Policy
Lower the income Tax
0% Corporate Tax
Kill the Death Tax
Take care of our Veterans
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

buttslinger

08-28-2015, 02:21 AM

I am not sure abut your sense of humour[sic], or your knowledge of recent events.

Guilty as charged.
I apologize to recent events, Arabs, and the Swedish Army.
I think that both the Arabs and Swedes were Nazi sympathizers, somewhat, but I'm not positive.

trish

08-28-2015, 03:09 AM

Build a wall
We need fewer walls and less razor wire, not more.

Deport the Illegals
Illegals is not a meaningful term. But if you mean exile Cliven Bundy for illegally occupying government land, go for it.

Reform our Free Trade Policy
Reform in which direction? Does the free market libertarian want tariffs?

Lower the income Tax
And increase the tax on capital gains.

0% Corporate Tax
20 profitable U.S. corporations already pay zero taxes. It’s time they start paying at the rates they paid mid-last-century...you know...when we were great.

Kill the Death Tax
Sure, we should have a class of people who inherit wealth and never, ever have to know what it’s like to work for a dollar. Better, we should just allow the dead to take it with them: they’re the one’s who earned it.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Again? America has always been a land a great promise. Perhaps we should just strive to live up to that promise a little more often. Greatness may follow.

Ben in LA

08-28-2015, 07:33 AM

How come Trump and this cronies never talk about the illegals coming from Canada? What about building a wall up there?

Stavros

08-28-2015, 06:07 PM

How come Trump and this cronies never talk about the illegals coming from Canada? What about building a wall up there?

Because they are not Mexicans?

a) Most of the illegal entrants from Canada are not Hispanic, but European, Caribbean or from the Middle East
b) the border in Michigan is mostly lakes and rivers, not solid land on which to build a wall
c) Canada is a nice country, and Canadians are nice people.

I believe this, from US Immigration.com was written in 2011:

The common image of an illegal immigrant sneaking into the U.S. involves a Latin American huddling for cover in the brush of an expansive desert. It’s hot, dry, and desolate. Perhaps they are attempting to swim across the Rio Grande as it meanders through the dusty climes of the southern U.S. or jump a fence in the middle of the night. There is a different, much less publicized form of illegal immigrant—the kind coming from Canada. Many of these individuals are not Latin American—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have apprehended border jumpers from Albania, The Czech Republic, Israel, and India—and the often cross the many waterways of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New York by boat, jet ski, or by swimming.

Last year, in an attempt to slow the flow of illegal immigration from Canada, CBP spent $20 million on a surveillance system that monitors 34 miles of the St. Clair River bordering Michigan and Canada—a popular destination for illegal immigrants crossing from Canada. So far, the new system has caught four human smuggling attempts. However, it is sometimes citizens who end up nabbing illegal immigrants by accident. A fishing group on the St. Clair River noticed a man in a Speedo with a backpack swimming in the river recently. CBP was alerted and the man, who hailed from the Czech Republic, was apprehended. The flow of illegal immigration across the U.S.-Canadian border is much slower than that of the U.S.-Mexico border, but it is enough to warrant enforcement. CBP agent Chris Grogan said, "People will continue to try to get in. We can't stop that. But we are doing whatever we can do to stop them. They realize that we're there, and we're going to get them."

Michigan is a particularly popular crossing point. Many lakes and rivers compose the border between the state and Canada and illegal immigrants use the rugged vastness of the terrain to their advantage. Kyle Niemi of the U.S. Coast Guard division charged with patrolling Michigan’s waterways has said, "It's a very complex system. ... You have lakes that are akin to seas—they're humongous. And then there are rivers that in the winter months you can walk across. It's a fragile system." At times, these water crossings have been deadly. A young Albanian boy was attempting to cross the Detroit River with his mother in 2005. His jet ski turned over, drowning him. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Brian Moskowitz has said, "People need to be careful. Not only do they face us, but they face some very real personal dangers."

Many critics claim that border security will do nothing to curb illegal immigration until the incentive to come to the U.S. is removed. That incentive, for most, is the possibility of employment. The sluggish U.S. economy has been responsible for a downturn in illegal immigration but many U.S. lawmakers are pushing for the mandatory use of E-Verify, a federal government database that allows employers to check the residency status and legality of someone they wish to hire. If employers could not hire illegal immigrants, many argue, illegal immigrants would have little reason to risk life and limb to come to the U.S.
https://www.usimmigration.com/illegal-immigrants-through-canada.html

broncofan

08-28-2015, 08:06 PM

One thing to note is that the article mentions a lot of people from countries other than Canada using the U.S. Canadian border to enter the U.S. The most obvious reason this would be the case is that the economic incentive is much greater for a Mexican immigrant to come to the U.S. than a Canadian citizen since Canada is a wealthy country.

The gdp per capita in Canada is 52,000 dollars per person in 2013 numbers. It's around 10,000 dollars per person in Mexico. Of course even in a wealthy country there are people below the poverty line, but many Mexicans can actually improve their economic status by working in very unattractive conditions in the U.S, which is one reason we see so much exploitation of Mexican immigrants. As a result, there are a lot of illegal immigrants from Mexico and relatively fewer Canadian ones, which is one reason other than racism why there's so much hysteria surrounding the security of the U.S Mexico border.

I am all for border security. I think a wall is a terrible investment because it would be expensive and would harm our relations with Mexico. Better enforcement at the border would be great, but violating the civil rights of hispanic people who have been here for generations is very wrong, and pretending like immigration is an epidemic that justifies a quarantine is plainly xenophobic.

buttslinger

08-28-2015, 08:31 PM

If HUNG ANGELS held an Art Contest and offered up a prize of ....a date with a TS Honey or something, you'd see a spirited competition, perhaps even a little cheating, and everyone would have a great time and a few laughs and get to know each other a little better through people's artistic entries.
If, however, a million dollar prize was offered, guys would show up from all over the World with paintings that would blow your mind they would be so good.
People come from Mexico because they are dirt poor down there.
The Tea Baggers that were let down by Dubya are about to be let down once again by Trump.
Bernie won't be defeated by Jeb, he'll be defeated by Hillary.
The only way a poor black male will make it in this country is if the cops shoot him, because of Lawyers.
Bernie's fairness doctrine is naïve, because commies only succeed in poor countries.
One day you'll see Socialism in the USA, but it will only be after we've lost all our power and money. More along the lines of Canada and England. All the One Percenters and Ripoff Insurance Companies will be in China and India, making tons of cash. This isn't necessarily wrong, it's just the way it is.

trish

08-28-2015, 09:20 PM

The Tea Baggers that were let down by Dubya are about to be let down once again by Trump.There weren't Tea-Baggers during Dubya's tenure in office. They are an reaction against Obama before he even did anything. They made their appearance (guns and all) at the town hall meetings in 2009-10 throughout the States that convened to discuss health care.

Bernie won't be defeated by Jeb, he'll be defeated by Hillary.Highly likely. But the fairness doctrine is not naive, it's simply right. Bernie may not win, but he's shifting the center of gravity to the left and Hillary's rolling toward it.

buttslinger

08-29-2015, 12:21 AM

They way I remember it is the Rush Limbo crowd was in an uproar before Bush even left office because of his runaway spending. By the end of his term in office, those who would be baggers were hurt and confused that their boy had fiddled while Rome burned. And while New Orleans drowned. Obama in charge was simply the last straw!

Walter Cronkite was proud of the fact that the way he delivered THE NEWS........Republicans thought he was a Republican and Democrats thought he was a Democrat. Bernie reeks of .......white do-gooder, or something. Why the white and black working class don't come together and put Congresses feet to the fire is a mystery to me, I think the one percent must be putting subliminal messages in their commercials.

But to be serious for a minute,
....................
I honestly don't expect any real changes about anything unless some huge unforeseen boon or disaster takes place. By the time you're blaming the government, it usually means it's too late.

buttslinger

08-30-2015, 05:42 PM

My Buttslinger Las Vegas LOCK is Clinton in 2016, and you can take that to the bank.
Trump, Sanders, Bush, Biden, emails.........all will be forgotten,..... or meaningless... a year from now.

The fact that we've had George W Bush, and then two "novelty" Presidents....a black man and a woman..... is troubling to me simply because I know that there are at least ten thousand more qualified Presidents out there, that we NEED, that for whatever reason, aren't interested.

I think Hillary is a cold fish bitch, but she really does have 8 years experience in the White House, and has been prepping for 16 years. She has the Machine behind her. A Woman in Charge, God help us all.

One reason Bernie Sanders won't fly in the BIGS is because people are superstitious about change, look at the last century, you've had airplanes, cars, antibiotics, and the internet,....but you've also had Hitler, Stalin, atomic bombs, and overpopulation. Every President's Campaign Promise of CHANGE has been diluted by real events, nothing ever changes. It's all been written in the book.

Stavros

08-30-2015, 08:22 PM

Although I have contributed posts to this thread I must admit to knowing next to nothing about Bernie Sanders. So I spent a few hours watching the c-span recordings of the Democrat Summer Meeting which was addressed by Presidential candidates Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton (the links are below but also includes DNC business so you may need to skip that stuff to get to the speeches).

Of the four, Chafee can be instantly dismissed, he has no depth or charisma, he seems like a nice guy but that's about it, and he used to be a Republican which might grate with some people, he was however the only one to refer to the current migrant crisis in Europe, but without offering any solutions. O'Malley sounds like a machine politician, and probably is. What if anything was noticeable is that he went through the check-list of Democrat issues and was followed by Bernie Sanders who did more or less the same thing.

It is a rota that takes in
-maintaining the Affordable Health Care Act;
-raising taxes to shift money from the super-rich to the average American;
-raising the minimum/living wage to $15 a hour;
-equal pay for men and women doing the same job;
-granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants;
-dealing with student debt;
-investing in the overhaul of the infrastructure.

Sanders cited issues others did not, such as
-his opposition to the fossil fuels industry;
-the public funding of elections;
-free tuition fees for college students and interest rate reductions on student debt;
-opposed to the Keystone pipeline.

Other than by raising taxes it was not clear to me where any of the money is going to come from to pay for these policies, and as a person he did not come across to me as a man with leadership potential. His opposition to fossil fuels might make sense as a long term strategy, if only because fossil fuels are a finite resource, but he shows no interest in the conventional petroleum industry or shale in spite of it being a jobs and wealth-generating sector of the economy, and presumably he would not get involved in the Arctic which by extension suggests the long term major players there will be Russia, Norway and perhaps the Canadians, to the detriment of the USA, this seems to me to be a lacuna in his policy-making portfolio: he doesn't really say what global role there is for the USA other than not getting involved in other people's wars -easier said than done.

His plea at the end, 'If we stand together there is nothing that we cannot accomplish' is wishy-washy idealism; it would make more sense to tell people in what is evidently a divided society how those divisions can be mended, good luck to anyone who can come with a solution to that one.

Surprisingly or not, Mrs Clinton gave the most accomplished speech and sounded like a leader, although she was high on aspiration and for all her practical examples (one of them about her grand-daughter pinched from Obama's Chicago speech on the night of the election in 200-eight, she too did not say how any of her policies would be paid for, and sometimes it was easy to forget that the USA already has a Democrat in the White House. She also has an irritating habit of nodding in agreement with the cheers her one-liners get, her aides may need to talk her out of that. Her own one-liners were sometimes quite good; when making a fool of Donald Trump (which is not hard) she said of her hair: 'the hair is mine, the colour isn't' and that could not be said of Trump's...
She was also the only one of the four to make a strong statement on gun control, which came across as sincere and compelling.

I think it was Clinton who said that raising income was 'the defining economic challenge of the times' or words to that effect, but in common with the other three, did not say how or where new, and more jobs would come from without which there is no income, unless everyone lives on welfare. The economy may be the key issue in Presidential elections but I wonder if the USA has a similar credibility gap as the UK when it comes to job-creation, I think people here are tired of politicians delivering platitudes, of which there was an abundance at this DNC meeting.

So far I would say Hillary Clinton is way, way ahead of the other three, but it remains to be seen how she would fare when talking to a hostile audience, or being grilled on the details of both her record in office and her aspirations. I see no long term future for Sanders, he is not up to the job, it is as simple as that.

The morning session, with presentations by Chafee and Clinton are here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327791-1/lincoln-chafee-hillary-clinton-dnc-summer-meeting

The afternoon sessions with O'Malley and Sanders are here:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?327791-2/martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-dnc-summer-meeting

buttslinger

08-31-2015, 02:01 AM

The fine writing skills of Stavros once again remind me that the posts here tell me less about the reality and more about the poster.
And once again raises the question is there a reality out there that truly exists as an entity unto itself, or is the reality in the eyes and minds of the human beholders? And what difference does it make?

There are lots of political newspaper writers out there that have forgotten more than I'll ever know about politics, but in the end they report, they make educated guesses, they stand and watch. What we call change only happens if enough people read their articles or see them on TV, and accept what they say as the truth and trust them. In other words, most people have absolutely no idea what's going on. The people that thought the world was flat now believe the world is round.

It's not enough to actually understand what is best for the USA, first, you have to sell it. In fact, the Presidency has become a combination of Madison Ave, and the Electoral College. Fact and fiction. In some ways this puts us ahead of the rest of the world and in some ways it puts us behind. Hitler thought democracy meant the president was operating with one hand tied behind his back. Saddam Hussein said it took him eight years in office to even begin to understand what he was doing.

I have no doubts that Bernie and Trish are right, in spite of all the Americans that don't know or even care what he's saying, but he may become a Ralph Nader and elect another George Bush, such are the realities of politics. One of my friends doesn't even vote, and he used to have John McCain come over to dinner at his house when he was a kid. When Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska the price of oil was so high she looked like a genius, if the San Andreas Fault ever acts up like it's supposed to, it won't matter who's President, hard times will be inevitable. There are countless factors in play. Sometimes when times are worst is when trust is highest.

Anyway, talking politics on a site devoted to tits and dicks is ridiculous, there is probably something terribly wrong with everyone reading this drivel. I like the read between the lines and try to figure out just how twisted each individual poster really is, despite them pretending to know what they're talking about. Hey, maybe this is a good place for politics after all.

Stavros

08-31-2015, 11:11 AM

[QUOTE=buttslinger;1630729]
The fine writing skills of Stavros once again remind me that the posts here tell me less about the reality and more about the poster.
And once again raises the question is there a reality out there that truly exists as an entity unto itself, or is the reality in the eyes and minds of the human beholders? And what difference does it make?

Flattered though I suppose I should be, I don't have a vote in your elections as I am not an American, and have no desire to swim from Thunder Bay to Duluth to become one (before Scott Walker builds a wall across the US-Canadian border); but comment on US politics out of interest and because the USA is still hugely influential -on specific issue such as TTIP, and general matters of politics and economics which has an impact on the rest of the world.

I can understand why you are cynical about US politics, but the candidates did refer to real issues, such as a living wage of $15 an hour, equal pay for equal work, the prison population, fossil fuels, education and health and so on. I think that is where the debate ought to be going. Many of those issues are not so different from what is on the agenda here in the UK. And it is, after all, debate that keeps democracies going.

buttslinger

08-31-2015, 08:54 PM

....real issues, such as a living wage of $15 an hour, equal pay for equal work, the prison population, fossil fuels, education and health and so on. I think that is where the debate ought to be going.....

OK, you're right, but there is a problem, I am absolutely unqualified to make an informed opinion or rational decision about any of these big issues because I don't have the resources to know if $15 an hour jobs means Big Macs would cost $15 or poor blacks might not be able to get any job at all. Or if releasing pothead prisoners would result in more spaced out stoners building cars on the assembly lines in Detroit.
If you have a College degree, then maybe you talk politics with your friends hanging out, If you have post graduate degrees then maybe you can actually have informed political debates with your friends at brunch, and not only make informed statements, but get informed insightful counter positions from your yuppie colleagues. If you have a High School diploma you talk to your friends about sports, gossip, whats for dinner. You don't what the news on PBS, you watch "The Big Bang Theory"
The USA is about an Amassed Fortune, and Politics and Business is kinda bout how "we" are gonna "divvy up" that fortune mongst "us".....At 0.5% interest, BUTTSLINGER's fortune is NOT growing, let me tell ya, and I think this actually benefits Obama's pet project: the poor black man. Bush had his own favorites: big business, and they surely prospered during his time in office. Hillary will probably be good for the middle class white man who has some savings. There are some Americans who are immune to these comings and goings,...the UBER-RICH who have Amassed such huge fortunes that their interest and dividends make more than the total income of a small Iowa town. They are always a few steps ahead of the government, or can influence government to see things their way, even if it means a small town in Iowa is going to have to go to work 5 days a week to pay for their lifestyle. It seems to be a lot easier to have America win and the black man lose than having America win and the Uber-Rich lose. Imagine that.

That would seem to be the major problem to me, if you fund the Military to defeat ISIS, then that's less money for social security, education, medicare. America winning first depends on your individual definition of winning. It depends on which earthly God you pray to. If Donald Trump is your God, you're doing pretty good right now!!! If you are a Hawk, McCain is a genius. If you're a woman, you might think Hillary is best for what ails the USA. So what is right really can depend upon your perspective.

Let's just suppose for a minute Bernie Sanders is right about everything, even if he is told old or uncharismatic to be prez: His winning would upset a whole lot of people who are in power right now. The yuppies and college professors would celebrate, but the CEOs and Generals would be pissed. His policies would indeed improve situations across the board, but it sometimes takes ten or twenty years to see that repairing a bridge today is a good idea.

Saul Alinsky had a technique where stockowners in a big company would sign over their proxies to him, and with that power he could gain control of that company and make sure the stockowners had their priorities met before fat cat CEOs. If all the people who don't even vote would sign their proxie (vote) over to Bernie, they would be very glad they did. But they won't.

dreamon

09-01-2015, 06:31 AM

I can understand why you are cynical about US politics, but the candidates did refer to real issues, such as a living wage of $15 an hour, equal pay for equal work, the prison population, fossil fuels, education and health and so on. I think that is where the debate ought to be going. Many of those issues are not so different from what is on the agenda here in the UK. And it is, after all, debate that keeps democracies going.

I find it amusing that Sanders campaigns on a $15 minimum wage while paying $12 an hour to his volunteers.

Stavros

09-01-2015, 11:02 AM

OK, you're right, but there is a problem, I am absolutely unqualified to make an informed opinion or rational decision about any of these big issues because I don't have the resources to know if $15 an hour jobs means Big Macs would cost $15 or poor blacks might not be able to get any job at all. Or if releasing pothead prisoners would result in more spaced out stoners building cars on the assembly lines in Detroit.
...
You do live in the USA Buttslinger, so you ought to know if $15 is a living wage. I suspect you also know that not everyone in the joint is there because they smoked one.

Stavros

09-01-2015, 11:03 AM

I find it amusing that Sanders campaigns on a $15 minimum wage while paying $12 an hour to his volunteers.

Ouch!! Maybe he is waiting for the law to change? If he is the one to change it, it will be a long time coming...

trish

09-01-2015, 06:11 PM

What don't you understand about the word "volunteer"?

broncofan

09-01-2015, 07:24 PM

There is no requirement to pay a volunteer or an intern for that matter. Sanders is advocating for a system where all employers pay their workers more, not one in which he pays more while everyone else pays the same amount. Such a system is only workable if it's mandated by law and applied uniformly. It doesn't register as hypocrisy for both those reasons. Just like someone who thinks the marginal income rate should be higher is not a hypocrite if they don't write checks to the gov't before the law is passed.

I think Sanders is not very charismatic, does not have much vision, and seems driven by ideology to such an extent that he would not make very good decisions as chief executive. But he does at least seem sincere and committed to a progressive agenda.

broncofan

09-01-2015, 08:08 PM

Dreamon, just offer a rebuttal. I have no problem with you periodically downvoting my posts you really don't like but this is following the familiar pattern of you saying something, me disagreeing, and then you finding a previous post to downvote. You might as well just do that to my last post, it's no less apparent.

BTW, what do you think about the democratic candidates? Any that you find less objectionable than the others?

fred41

09-02-2015, 03:38 AM

To clear some things up...he is paying his 'Senate' interns $12 an hour.
Interns are covered by the FSLA; private interns are usually required to be paid - HOWEVER, according to articles I have read, Congress is exempted (of course) from this law...so that, yes...a federal gov't intern isn't often paid.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/03/members-of-congress-push-minimum-wage-hike-but-dont-pay-interns/29624615/
also, from what I have read, Bernie Sanders is for phasing in the 15 dollar minimum wage by, I believe, 2020.

BUT...
If that were not the case, I believe it would have been hypocrisy - You can't use the law to protect yourself,in regards to a wage, if you are, in fact, arguing a 'living wage'...especially if there is no law mandating (and therefore 'limiting') what you, yourself can pay. Any decent manager knows, especially if your running for the ultimate managing job in the U.S.A - you have to lead by example...

However, all this is moot, since it seems he is one of the minority in congress to actually pay his interns anything at all.

Republicans can gain a small comfort from this 2013 article, showing more of them paid interns(but not Rubio or Cruz) than their Democratic counterparts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-the-senate-exploits-unpaid-interns/279111/
But over all...meh.

broncofan

09-02-2015, 05:38 AM

We'll agree to disagree on the point about hypocrisy. I agree it's a good idea, but when you do something before it's mandatory, you give others a competitive advantage. People don't do the right thing because others don't and if you do, you're not just doing the right thing but you're suffering the consequences of others not (ie. a collective action problem). It is of course a good idea to do the things you advocate before it's mandatory, but I don't think failing to makes you less sincere about your aspirations, which envision a plan where everyone shares the burden.

There's a FLSA balancing test for interns. http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm . As you say if Sanders were a private employer there's no way he would meet all six factors. But peculiarly enough, every unpaid internship I ever had I ended up doing real work and didn't learn much except that other people like having free labor:)

dreamon

09-06-2015, 09:51 PM

What don't you understand about the word "volunteer"?

Oh so that makes it ok. Everyone should be paid $15 an hour. Unless they're a volunteer.

dreamon

09-06-2015, 09:53 PM

BTW, what do you think about the democratic candidates? Any that you find less objectionable than the others?

No. The Democrats are rolling out the biggest shitstorm of candidates I've seen in a long time. It's actually sad how bad their candidates are this year. The Republicans have their fair share of idiots like Trump and Bush but at least there are some ok choices in that party.

wearboots4me

09-07-2015, 05:20 AM

What don't you understand about the word "volunteer"?

Good point. When I volunteered to work on political campaigns phone banking or knocking on doors I was paid exactly $0/hr.

buttslinger

09-08-2015, 06:38 AM

This whole 12/15 dollar tempest in a teacup sounds like one of those BreitbartFactory mud smears trying to find any mud that will stick to a candidate that in my mind is TOO ethical!
These are the same guys who say teachers shouldn't get overtime for grading papers at home because teaching isn't a "job" it's a "calling"

I don't get Fox News on my Cable TV anymore, and I don't listen to Conservative Radio in the car unless there's a big election coming up. I doubt their listeners even know where Bernie is coming from.
Hillary has a burning desire to settle some old scores with Republicans after the Monica/Ken Starr witch hunt humiliation.
There will be blood!
This time it will be personal. I can't wait.

dreamon

09-09-2015, 07:44 AM

This whole 12/15 dollar tempest in a teacup sounds like one of those BreitbartFactory mud smears trying to find any mud that will stick to a candidate that in my mind is TOO ethical!

Sanders introduced a bill into the Senate that would require a $15 minimum wage.

“The current federal minimum wage is a starvation wage. It’s got to be raised to a living wage."

Sanders urged President Barack Obama to sign an executive order “so that every federal contract worker in this country is paid a living wage with good benefits and the ability to join a union,” according to a copy of his prepared remarks.

“The people who serve our food and clean our offices should not be forced to work two or three jobs just to pay the bills,” Sanders said.

“Today, we send a very loud and clear message to the United States Congress, to the president of the United States and to corporate America,” Sanders said. “In the richest country on the face of the Earth, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.”

Those are extremely strong comments from someone who seems to have no problem paying people something he does not consider to be a living wage, and that will send his employees into abject poverty.

buttslinger

09-09-2015, 05:11 PM

It used to be that all the CEOs were in competition with each other, but now. it's like the NFL, where all the owners are buddies AND competitors. But the NFL Union could easily hire a firm of CPAs to replace the Owners and not miss a beat. The owners have there shit together much more than the players, and when I say shit I mean MONEY. You don't get rich by earning Money, you get rich by SAVING money, and the Owners have amassed huge piles of cash and the use it as leverage to dictate "how it's gonna be" ....When Reagan fired all the striking Air Traffic Controllers, he signed the Paper that says this is not a Country of the People, it's a Country of Peons.

PS The minimum wage NOW is $7.25/hr. So Bernie is actually spreadin' that wealth around pretty good.
Republican Voters who fall in the category of "LABOR" voting for Management time and time again is the stupidest blunder in the History of all Mankind.

buttslinger

09-11-2015, 06:32 PM

There is a reason Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are so hot now, they represent the most polar opposites in American Politics. I actually know more about the Donald than Bernie, as people,
The guy who wrote the Rolling Stone article about Trump was on CNN last night, and basically her said there are two Donald Trumps: the business savvy shark with the killer instinct who really does have a unique sense of reading economic tealeaves and the minds of Republican voters.......and a twelve year old kid who was sent away to military school as a kid by his mega-rich Dad.
Republican voters see him building a wall around Mexico, defeating Putin and ISIS, and making all Americans rich again.
Bernie Sanders is basically a Union Man, which during an election would translate to COMMUNIST, which is a more heinous word than BUSH in the USA. Democrat voters see him taking away all the Fat Cat's cash and distributing it 'mongst the working class, basically doubling income and making all Americans Rich again.

AshlynCreamher

09-20-2015, 06:13 PM

In June 2012, Sanders wrote a piece for The Huffington Post titled, “United Against the War on Women,”

"We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family, and physician to make, not the government."

Abortion isn't a woman's choice, its just plain evil

878146

878153

trish

09-20-2015, 06:47 PM

Blastospheres are not people. Women DO have a right to make decisions that involve their own bodies.

AshlynCreamher

09-20-2015, 07:33 PM

buttslinger

09-20-2015, 07:50 PM

Ashlyn, please don't wear your HUNG ANGELS t-shirt to a pro life rally, you might get beat up. Most pro-lifers are more HUCKABEE than TRUMP, and define sex as two minutes between a man and woman, married, and as stiff as possible.

trish

09-20-2015, 08:34 PM

Life begins at conception, therefore a blastosphere (embryo) is a human life and just because this human life is in the early development stages, it does not exclude its God giving right to life.

Abortion is murder, period

Life began only once, about 3.8 billion years ago. The question is, "What claim does a few hundred undifferentiated cells have on the body and future life of the women who carries it?"

Just because each of your cells is a human life and carries the code to an complete person, should be pass a law against biting your cuticles? Should we pass a law against male masturbation (which would of course carry only half the punishment of an abortion since sperm only codes for half a person)?

Blastocysts and fetuses are not persons. If it were up to me, the law would say it's legal to abort any homo sapien up until it has passed third term calculus.

AshlynCreamher

09-20-2015, 09:08 PM

Here's the thing, a finger nail will never grow into a human.

Here's the thing, seman on the ground will not fertilize a human egg.

Here's the thing, once we start debating on what 'true human life' is, we got people saying its okay to kill Jews, gypsy and trannies. (In other words we get to deside who gets to live and who gets discarded)

I'd rather respect and defend all life. And yes the death penalty should be abolished. It's the only schedualed death as cold as abortion

Life began only once, about 3.8 billion years ago. The question is, "What claim does a few hundred undifferentiated cells have on the body and future life of the women who carries it?"

Just because each of your cells is a human life and carries the code to an complete person, should be pass a law against biting your cuticles? Should we pass a law against male masturbation (which would of course carry only half the punishment of an abortion since sperm only codes for half a person)?

Blastocysts and fetuses are not persons. If it were up to me, the law would say it's legal to abort any homo sapien up until it has passed third term calculus.

trish

09-20-2015, 09:42 PM

Here's the thing, a finger nail will never grow into a human. All you have to do is clone it and grow it. We're already seriously talking about growing meat that way in the near future.

Here's the thing, seman on the ground will not fertilize a human egg.Why not? As long as the DNA doesn't degrade it can be used to fertilize an egg.

Here's the thing, once we start debating on what 'true human life' is, we got people saying its okay to kill Jews, gypsy and trannies.Really? Your going to use the o' slippery slope argument?? Who are the people in the U.S. most in favor of pro-choice? The liberals, right. I hear conservatives dividing people into the worthy and the unworthy, the decent and the indecent, the goods guys and the rapists, the winners and the losers, but I don't hear a lot of pro-choice people speaking in those sorts of terms. Your slippery slope argument just doesn't hold water...perhaps because you've got it on a slope.

As I said, life on Earth began only once. That was about 3.8 billion years ago. So what could one possibly mean by the claim ‘life begins at conception’ ? Perhaps you mean to imply that your life began at conception and that likewise so did mine and everyone else’s. But that’s not a biological claim. It is a claim of ownership. YOUR life began at conception. YOUR story begins there. But does it? Do you remember your conception? Does your mother? In your memory, your story probably doesn’t really begin until you were two years old. Few people have memories that reach back to before than can talk. But you probably have a family who remember you since you were born. You probably have seen your baby pictures. Where does one’s story begin?

In one legal sense the law doesn’t recognize you until you’re born. Only after you’re born are you added to the census. If you were born in the U.S. you are (currently) considered a citizen. If you were conceived in the U.S. but born in Mexico of Mexican citizens then you’re not a U.S. citizen.

If you were conceived but never born, did you have a life? Even a short one?

Would you ban contraceptive devices that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs?

There are some who imagine the very nanosecond a sperm enters an egg God pokes a soul into the union. Why doesn’t he wait until it undergoes its first division? Perhaps he has needs to wait until the central nervous system is sufficiently developed before he can install a soul and connect it all up with the body. Given the exponential birthrate on this planet, I’m sure God no longer does any of this personally. He probably has an assembly line of angels working around the clock, installing souls into womb-zombies turning them into innocent unborn children.

The things people believe are just crazy. What’s sad is when these beliefs are foisted upon private individuals who are making decisions that will affect their lives for the rest of their lives as well as the lives of their families. Passing a law forcing a women to bring every pregnancy to full term is granting government about the heaviest hand one can imagine.

Your life began when your mother decided to carry you to term and give you birth.

AshlynCreamher

09-20-2015, 11:12 PM

All you have to do is clone it and grow it. We're already seriously talking about growing meat that way in the near future.

Why not? As long as the DNA doesn't degrade it can be used to fertilize an egg.

Really? Your going to use the o' slippery slope argument?? Who are the people in the U.S. most in favor of pro-choice? The liberals, right. I hear conservatives dividing people into the worthy and the unworthy, the decent and the indecent, the goods guys and the rapists, the winners and the losers, but I don't hear a lot of pro-choice people speaking in those sorts of terms. Your slippery slope argument just doesn't hold water...perhaps because you've got it on a slope.

As I said, life on Earth began only once. That was about 3.8 billion years ago. So what could one possibly mean by the claim ‘life begins at conception’ ? Perhaps you mean to imply that your life began at conception and that likewise so did mine and everyone else’s. But that’s not a biological claim. It is a claim of ownership. YOUR life began at conception. YOUR story begins there. But does it? Do you remember your conception? Does your mother? In your memory, your story probably doesn’t really begin until you were two years old. Few people have memories that reach back to before than can talk. But you probably have a family who remember you since you were born. You probably have seen your baby pictures. Where does one’s story begin?

In one legal sense the law doesn’t recognize you until you’re born. Only after you’re born are you added to the census. If you were born in the U.S. you are (currently) considered a citizen. If you were conceived in the U.S. but born in Mexico of Mexican citizens then you’re not a U.S. citizen.

If you were conceived but never born, did you have a life? Even a short one?

Would you ban contraceptive devices that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs?

There are some who imagine the very nanosecond a sperm enters an egg God pokes a soul into the union. Why doesn’t he wait until it undergoes its first division? Perhaps he has needs to wait until the central nervous system is sufficiently developed before he can install a soul and connect it all up with the body. Given the exponential birthrate on this planet, I’m sure God no longer does any of this personally. He probably has an assembly line of angels working around the clock, installing souls into womb-zombies turning them into innocent unborn children.

The things people believe are just crazy. What’s sad is when these beliefs are foisted upon private individuals who are making decisions that will affect their lives for the rest of their lives as well as the lives of their families. Passing a law forcing a women to bring every pregnancy to full term is granting government about the heaviest hand one can imagine.

Your life began when your mother decided to carry you to term and give you birth.

I'm not talking about the law, or some imagined god I'm talking about reality. this is not about some immigration policy this is about life and death.

and the fact is your words are proving my point, whether life began 3 point sumthin billion years ago, or when a sperm enters a egg, or after the first division of the embryo, or some nano second afterward or 100 point something billion years ago, or yesterday these are truths that we do not know, because you or I do not to clearly remember or know when our personal lives began.

"truth is that which matches reality exactly" - we do not know the truth, we can only approximate.

what I'm saying, what you are not responding too, is that we can either respect life, giving it the benefit of the doubt, or make broad assumption's, that we have the wisdom to choose life or death for others, or likewise allowing others to make that choice without speaking against it.

when you speak of slippery slopes, again I agree with you. because when we seek to define life vs tissue, vs worthy life, vs a life to be destroyed we are on the slippery slope of validating the murder of others not like us.

I'd like to know your feelings on the death penalty, do you think its okay for the state to schedule your murder?

responding to your other question: if I were conceived yet not born, of course I would have had a life - life is a continuum, which we are all apart of, exercising our Free will to choose with-in-it. some choose light, and life, some choose death, darkness.

as to your question about banning contraceptives: I would remind you that the contraceptives that always works is for a man to not insert his penis into a vagina, because when that happens its a mistake WHEN A CHILD IS NOT CONCEIVED. ofcourse the best contraceptives is to land a thermo nuclear device over a given population as you will kill uncounted thousands of future generation's. just like placing Planned Parenthood within poor communities, it has the same effect

I think about the rivers we dig so later we can build bridges across them, and I say to my self, why dig the river in the first place. because if it was your sorry ass or mine hanging out of my mother's vagina about to have our brains sucked out, I would defend you and your life as much as my own, or my adopted child.

so my final question to you is: please define good and evil without any morals attached, because I'd really like to know.

oh and BTW, in regard to what God cares about, the creator of all that is or will ever be, I don't think he gives a rat's ass about you or me. so its up to us to stand to gather, and defend our right to be.

trish

09-21-2015, 12:38 AM

this is not about some immigration policy this is about life and death.Not it isn't. That simply the way you wish to frame it. Conception IS NOT the beginning of life.

we do not knowWe do know. Biological life began 3.8 billion years ago. Where your personal life begins is not a matter of fact. It depends on where you choose to begin the story.

what I'm saying, what you are not responding too, is that we can either respect life, giving it the benefit of the doubt, or make broad assumption's, that we have the wisdom to choose life or death for others, or likewise allowing others to make that choice without speaking against it.The broad assumption is that a women who has to make a decision you will never have to make should be forced in every instance to follow your vague notion of what constitutes respect for life. This show very little respect for the woman's freedom to make choices about her own body or her own life.

I'd like to know your feelings on the death penalty, do you think its okay for the state to schedule your murder?
Murder, no. Execute, perhaps. In the U.S. we are the state. The the question here is, "Do you think its okay for body of people who have been given by the general populace the authority to find a criminal guilty and sentence him (or her) to capital punishment?" I am not philosophically opposed to capital punishment. In practice, I am against it because in the U.S. it has been and continues to be abused. For myself, I can't imagine anything worse than life in prison without hope for parole. Put me to death, please.

if I were conceived yet not born, of course I would have had a life - life is a continuum, which we are all apart of, exercising our Free will to choose with-in-it. some choose light, and life, some choose death, darkness.So you had free-will in the womb. At what point and to do what? You didn't even have a consciousness until you had a central nervous system sufficiently developed to support one.

I would remind you that the contraceptives that always works is for a man to not insert his penis into a vagina, because when that happens its a mistake WHEN A CHILD IS NOT CONCEIVED. ofcourse the best contraceptives is to land a thermo nuclear device over a given population as you will kill uncounted thousands of future generation's. just like placing Planned Parenthood within poor communities, it has the same effectNow you're just talking crazy. That's the best contraceptive you can think of?! So are you for the heavy hand of the government taking away all forms of contraception except abstinence and nuclear extermination? How are you a conservative??

so my final question to you is: please define good and evil without any morals attached, because I'd really like to know.
I'm not sure why you assigned me this exercise, but I would say Good is the label we attach to things we value. Evil is the label we attach to things we abhor. We don't always agree what we should value and we often abhor things we fear and simply don't understand.

oh and BTW, in regard to what God cares about, the creator of all that is or will ever be, I don't think he gives a rat's ass about you or me.Good. So God doesn't give a rats ass about fetuses either. It's up to us to decide what we should value: the claim we imagine an blastosphere has over a woman's life, or the freedom of the woman to decide whether she wants to carry it term. You seem to agree there is no absolute answer to this question:you seem to be saying that we get to decide. Our difference is: you want to decide yourself for everyone, and I would prefer each woman answer the question on her own when she needs to.

AshlynCreamher

09-21-2015, 01:22 AM

I'm Conservative? who says I'm Conservative? I'm AshlynCreamher Motha Fuck'n Creamher, I'm not a conservative, I'm a tranny!

perhaps you've never been deposed by a group of lawyers setting in a conference room for 8 hours. so I'm here to tell you that your answers to my questions are nonresponsive.

I'm going to skip to the end because I'm making dinner for my family, its a school night, so I have to go. the answer to the question about defining good and evil without morals attached is so simple if you just think about the question with a open mind.

that which increases entropy is inherently evil, that which decreases it; is good. human life needs stability, like the goldilocks zone and all that shit, remember?

while I will defend your right to life, to existence, you seem to be unwilling to do the same for others, because no matter how you talk shit, each of us started as a egg and a seed.

so you go on and choose who lives and who dies, as for me i reject your lies. I remain steadfast in that all lives matter, even in the poor neighborhoods. and even to that poor sorry ass half-born about to have his/her brains sucked-out - that person matters and so do you.

don't fear what we can accomplish together.

Stavros

09-21-2015, 01:38 AM

Life begins at conception, therefore a blastosphere (embryo) is a human life and just because this human life is in the early development stages, it does not exclude its God giving right to life.

Abortion is murder, period

Why do the same people who claim that 'Life begins at conception' show such contempt for it once it has been born? Life begins at conception, it ends in a field in Vietnam, or a bombed out home in Baghdad. War is murder, period.

trish

09-21-2015, 02:13 AM

I'm Conservative? who says I'm Conservative?I read your posts.

I'm here to tell you that your answers to my questions are nonresponsive.I've been quite responsive. Apparently I haven't responded in the way you would've liked.

that which increases entropy is inherently evil, that which decreases it; is good. human life needs stability, like the goldilocks zone and all that shit, remember?Good to know, except every process increases entropy...it's the second law of thermodynamics. The trick is to advantage one region with a decrease of entropy to the disadvantage another with an even greater increase in entropy...which sounds positively evil :)

so you go on and choose who lives and who dies,I am very unlikely to ever make such a choice, since I'll never be pregnant. My desire is to leave each such choice to the person who is in the best position to make a sound decision. Your desire is to make the choice for everyone.

Goodnight, Ashlyn. Have a nice evening.

MrFanti

10-03-2015, 02:43 AM

I can't begin to imagine what the cost of living (i.e. taxes) would be in California if Bernie was President.

Just waiting for Biden to make it official....

xxx617

10-10-2015, 03:52 AM

Unfortunately, I believe Biden would be an extension of Obama and Deval Patrick would be his running mate.

flabbybody

10-14-2015, 05:43 PM

I can't begin to imagine what the cost of living (i.e. taxes) would be in California if Bernie was President.

Just waiting for Biden to make it official....
At this point even Biden's biggest fans are getting annoyed at his indecision

broncofan

10-21-2015, 04:32 PM

So who here thinks that a more socialist system would make this a better country? I have not seen Bernie's tax plan, but I imagine that a more graduated tax system with more brackets, extending towards the much higher income ranges, would be a more fair system. I also like the idea of having better social programs and moving towards a single payer healthcare system (which will never happen I think).

But at the end of the day I don't have confidence that's what enough Americans want and I don't think Bernie could get elected as I said. I also have doubts about how efficiently we could administer that system given our federalist structure and what kind of backlash we get for moving that far left given our political culture. I also do not know how good Bernie would be at governing and whether he would let some of his big ideas get in the way of making tough decisions. So I'm not sure I would support Bernie over Hillary even if he were electable.

Anyway, his campaign has had a bit more legs than I thought it would. And as I think Trish said, it affects how the other candidates present themselves. When they see another candidate with a cult following advocating socialist policies they realize there is a segment of society that is not averse to broader social programs and a more egalitarian economic system.

trish

10-21-2015, 06:56 PM

So who here thinks that a more socialist system would make this a better country? Oo ooo! I do! I do! (Arm aimed straight at the teacher and vibrating for attention). Social security, medicare, planned parenthood, federal support for public education, I’m in favor of them all.

‘don’t know Bernie’s plan either, but I agree we could simplify the tax code, removing loopholes, add more brackets at the higher end with higher rates, drop the tax cap on social security and tax capital gains in the higher brackets at the rates we tax income in those brackets.

I doubt whether Americans has a whole think enough about these issues to know what they want. Everybody likes and expects the social benefits they get but hate the idea that their tax dollars might benefit somebody else in a different way. The elderly love Social Security, yet you can always find people and politicians who want to get rid of it or privatize it (as if scooping a profit off the top of the take will reduce the price of the product and increase it’s value). Young people don’t always realize that without Social Security, they’d be making up the difference, feeding and financially supporting their parents to help them make ends meet. I love the tea-party sign that read, “Keep Your Gov’ment Mits Off My Medicare.” We live in villages, towns and cities because we learned that to survive we need to depend on each other. We increase the quality of our lives by depending on each other.

To the political question: Bernie or Hillary?

Presently, I’m leaning toward Hillary. She has experience in State and Federal Government. As Secretary of State she skillfully and diplomatically handled any number of crisis. She got a tough skin and has experience handling herself in the political arena. Bernie has less experience, although as a Senator he still has considerable experience and knowledge about domestic and foreign, political and commercial issues. I like the way he pushing the issue of economic equality and pulling the discussion in that direction. At the moment, he seems to me a bit less savvy politically. I think Hillary has a better chance at getting elected.

Of course all of this is in flux. I may revise my assessment next week.

Stavros

10-21-2015, 08:48 PM

Just as I was watching as much as I could take of the Democrat Candidates debate, I learn that Jim Webb has dropped out (one wonders why he bothered dropping in), and that Joe Biden will definitely not stand. Of the remaining four, Chafee seems to me to be 'nice, but dim', Martin O'Malley comes across as a reasonable man but with a questionable record (he says as Governor Maryland now has the best performing public schools in America, how one judges that I don't know). His main problem is that he has no charisma, he doesn't ignite any passion in an audience, and I think the voters want someone who fires them up.

Hillary Clinton has charisma in abundance and came across as the candidate most keyed in to practical policy making, but I fear after so many years in public life it is her presentation skills that lift her above her competitors. When she was challenged on the way she has shifted her policies to suit her audience, I thought her response was weak, yes her values might not have changed in the last 40 years, but it is the policies not the values that were under scrutiny. I have also read somewhere that she is not a collegiate person, she makes up her mind and expects everyone else to fall into line, and can bully those who are reluctant, whereas one hopes a President would take counsel before making decisions, or maybe that is what Bill is for, since he doesn't seem to be good for much else these days (other than making money giving speeches).

Sanders, if selected, and I don't think he will be, would not win the Presidency. His aggressive stance and his negative tone smacks of resentment where voters are looking for hope. Playing on resentment and fear is undoubtedly part of a good speech, but people want something to vote for, not against, they want something they think will work, and that requires a positive message which Sanders does not deliver. It is like someone who goes to the doctor with an illness and all they get is an explanation from the doctor of what it is, when what they want is a remedy to get rid of it.

Sanders calls himself a 'Democratic Socialist' but on the basis of what he said he is not a socialist of any description other than his own, but is a 1960s Democrat who believes in Big Government of the kind one associates with LBJ and the War on Poverty. He uses resentment at the super-rich to peddle the policy which would re-structure taxation to be more equitable across income groups, but cannot explain how, if at all, this would in any way create jobs. Yes, the spread of income in Sweden, Norway and Denmark might be fairer than it is in the USA, but that is not what either sustains or creates jobs in those countries, and the long term issue in the USA, as most of the candidates did acknowledge, is that over the last 12 (if not more than that) years, wages have stagnated relative to other costs, while over the last 30 years it is the loss of jobs indeed entire industries to overseas markets and the corresponding decline in heavy industry and sources of work for a mass of low or unskilled workers that has caused such trauma to the US economy.

We have the same arguments in this country and while I think the rich and super-rich should pay more tax, I don't think it makes much difference to job creation, investment patterns or business start-ups, if people are given more money they will be spending it on drawing down their debt, paying off their mortgage and so on.

As usual, Clinton parrots the line that job creation 'will come' from 'investment in the infrastructure and green energy' but Obama was saying this in his first campaign in 2008, what happened to this policy? Sanders lashes out 'we need to take back our government from a handful of billionaires' as if a Democrat had not been in the White House for the past seven years, and if he is referring to Congress why has his party failed to control it since 2008?

On the available evidence, Hillary Clinton will get the nomination, unless she dies suddenly, falls seriously ill, or someone we don't yet know of enters the race. I have no vote in US elections, and looking at the emerging candidates between the Democrats and the Republicans, I am relieved I don't have to make the choice.

fred41

10-22-2015, 03:07 AM

Jim Webb kind of straddles a bit of the gray area between both parties, and unfortunately nowadays there isn't much room for that. He also sounds lost - he complained that he didn't get any time , which is true, but then when he did get some , he did nothing with it. Goodbye.
I give Bernie Sanders credit for having the class to deflect the medias critique of Clinton's emails...but it also showed he may not have the stomach for this, because truth be told, if the positions were reversed, there is no way in hell that Hillary Clinton would have given him the same benefit. That's not how it works.
At this point almost every political contender is in pander mode...so when they asked Hillary Clinton about changing her message depending on the audience, well..to be fair, a lot of them do that, it's just that some contenders aren't interesting enough to be continuously quoted at every dinner or event they show up in. Also, none of the other politicians on that stage ever had the spotlight on them often enough to see how they waffled. Hell, these are primaries...everyone waffles.
She did try to deflect some responses by shifting to an occasional message of unity against the Republican Party...but that is usually just drivel: Save that for the election debates, these are the primaries -voters want to see the differences between the candidates in the same party , not a rallying call against the other party...but she did time it well when she did it, and usually the crowd approved.
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton clearly won that debate. She was the most polished...she threw the message left when she had to and then reeled it slightly back, closer to the center when she had to. There were no gaffes worthy of more than a shrug.
The contest here, is clearly between Clinton and Sanders. The passion is behind Sanders - he has a clear message that he's sticking with and the extreme left of that party can usually be counted on empathizing with his "revolution" stance.
Clinton and her team have lots of experience at this now, and it clearly shows. Forget Biden...she'd probably crush him. (she already got him to spew a small lie about how he, not her, told President Obama to go ahead and unleash the Seals on Bin Laden ...that turned out false according to Gates and the President).

But,...she does come across (now) as old establishment against a fresh (but not young) passionate face.
I agree with Stavros and probably most of the world - Hillary will get the nomination, "unless she dies suddenly, falls seriously ill, or someone we don't yet know enters the race".

Can't tell you much about the republican debate, I only saw the first one...and that herd needs to be thinned Waaaaaay down first.

Stavros

10-22-2015, 09:45 AM

The obvious, and ultimate question, Fred, is -if Hillary Clinton does get the nomination, can she win the Presidency? It would be easy to sit here and ridicule Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz (apparently George W Bush doesn't like him), and there may yet be late comers to the party, but there is still a long way to go. And I imagine the dirt and vitriolic abuse that will be levelled at Mrs Clinton by her enemies will make the campaign a rough one indeed.

fred41

10-22-2015, 02:17 PM

She can very well win the presidency...most betting sites give her the best odds by far. The closest Republicans at this point are usually Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush...but their odds are way behind her.
But as you said - "....there is still a long way to go."
The economy may dictate the presidency but it's 'foreign policy' that may help decide this, only because almost anything can happen out there , on any given day, with so much time in between.

VKC

10-23-2015, 04:22 PM

If Hilary runs I will vote for Trump (ie... Republican no matter what) , if Bernie runs I will vote for him no matter what.

A debate about abortion on a transgender webite? Really. Red Herring Fallacy? Maybe? Just a little. Transfemale here.

Anyway, there is no way to deport illegals. There are just too many. The idea is unrealistic and stupid. As far as i am concerned, since the U.S. nation builds, Mexico, our neighbor, needs rebuilt. Seriously, the U.S. travels half the world away to help others when 10,000,000 Mexicans left 'their' homeland for a better life (not an exact number, but still.) Why would I care about what is going on half the world away when our neighbor needs help.

trish

10-23-2015, 05:03 PM

A debate about abortion on a transgender webite? Really. Red Herring Fallacy? Maybe? Just a little.Some of us have mothers, sisters, women friends, women lovers, nieces etc. Some of us just care. Why wouldn't abortion be a topic of discussion here? We're women too. The fallacy is thinking that women's issues concern only women; or that pro-choice concerns only fertile women.

Anyway, there is no way to deport illegals. There are just too many. The idea is unrealistic and stupid. As far as i am concerned, since the U.S. nation builds, Mexico, our neighbor, needs rebuilt. Seriously, the U.S. travels half the world away to help others when 10,000,000 Mexicans left 'their' homeland for a better life (not an exact number, but still.) Why would I care about what is going on half the world away when our neighbor needs help.I agree -for the most part (what's going on half a world away can easily enough impact our economy and security, and people are still people even if they're on the other side of the world)-but yes, I agree that we should be helping Mexico (as well as Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador). Ninety percent of the fruit grown on U.S. soil is picked by immigrants who came from below our border. So why would you vote for the idiot who wants to build a wall along our southern border, instead of Hillary? I would think that on most of the issues one associates with Bernie's campaign, the difference between him and Clinton is far smaller than the distance between Sanders and any one of the clowns now running for the GOP presidential nomination.

broncofan

10-23-2015, 05:24 PM

Anyway, there is no way to deport illegals. There are just too many. The idea is unrealistic and stupid. As far as i am concerned, since the U.S. nation builds, Mexico, our neighbor, needs rebuilt. Seriously, the U.S. travels half the world away to help others when 10,000,000 Mexicans left 'their' homeland for a better life (not an exact number, but still.) Why would I care about what is going on half the world away when our neighbor needs help.
It is interesting because I find Trump's policies with respect to illegal immigrants to be unrealistic, punitive, and racist. And while I agree that we cannot deport everyone here illegally, what we need is immigration reform so that people who are undocumented can be put on a path to citizenship. In principle, I have no problem with the idea of people who avoided the immigration process being deported, but if it's impracticable and comes at a high cost to those who are here legally, there must be a better answer.

I also think the idea of nation building is a red herring. We are not bombing Syria to rebuild their society but because we think it protects our interests (and for humanitarian reasons that are not really nation building). And there will probably be a persistent disparity between the wealth of the U.S. and Mexico for decades. I don't think it's a legitimate object of U.S. policy to increase the economic prosperity of Mexico...

I also don't understand your comment about abortion unless you were just joking. We discuss all sorts of issues and not only out of self-interest but because they are relevant subjects.

Stavros

10-23-2015, 06:23 PM

...I don't think it's a legitimate object of U.S. policy to increase the economic prosperity of Mexico...

Why then did the USA, Canada and Mexico sign the North America Free Trade Agreement in 1992-1994?

broncofan

10-23-2015, 06:31 PM

Why then did the USA, Canada and Mexico sign the North America Free Trade Agreement in 1992-1994?
I think the idea was mutual benefit. Although we would prefer Mexico to be prosperous, I don't think it's the explicit goal of our economic policy to ensure it if it comes at our expense (I haven't looked at the effects of NAFTA, some might argue that was the result of it, I'm not sure it was the reason we entered into the agreement). It must have been sold as a boon to all, and that wealth is not a zero-sum game...and it does not have to be.

xxx617

10-24-2015, 12:34 AM

Sanders calls himself a 'Democratic Socialist' but on the basis of what he said he is not a socialist of any description other than his own, but is a 1960s Democrat who believes in Big Government of the kind one associates with LBJ and the War on Poverty. He uses resentment at the super-rich to peddle the policy which would re-structure taxation to be more equitable across income groups, but cannot explain how, if at all, this would in any way create jobs. Yes, the spread of income in Sweden, Norway and Denmark might be fairer than it is in the USA, but that is not what either sustains or creates jobs in those countries, and the long term issue in the USA, as most of the candidates did acknowledge, is that over the last 12 (if not more than that) years, wages have stagnated relative to other costs, while over the last 30 years it is the loss of jobs indeed entire industries to overseas markets and the corresponding decline in heavy industry and sources of work for a mass of low or unskilled workers that has caused such trauma to the US economy.

We have the same arguments in this country and while I think the rich and super-rich should pay more tax, I don't think it makes much difference to job creation, investment patterns or business start-ups, if people are given more money they will be spending it on drawing down their debt, paying off their mortgage and so on.

What constitutes a fair share for the ultra rich? I have asked a few Bernie supporters this Q, and the response I get is that "it just needs to be more." The top 10% makes up 70% of the tax revenue in this country and the people in the poverty bracket pay a disproportionate amount. If Bernie's tax plan were to be implemented I believe it would hurt the middle class the most.

I agree with your point on him being a LBJ type and how he uses resentment. He plays to people's envy, just like Trump plays to the anger.

The spread of income in the Nordic countries is also misrepresented. Sweden, for instance, had a very prosperous pass. After they deregulated their economy in the late 19th C. real wages increased by 25%/decade from 1860-1910 and public spending was below 10%. These are staggering figures. Also, they managed to avoid wars and they have a small population. All of these factors in addition to free trade lead to better economic equality, not a 100% increase in gov't spending in the 70s-80s. Their 'socialism' only held them back, they went from the 4th richest nation to the 14th (1975-2000). An important thing to remember is that even during their peak of gov't spending they still had free trade.

As it pertains to wages and loss of jobs I believe the three main factors are taxation, the minimum wage, and the Federal Reserve.

1.More taxation means less savings for individuals and less opportunity for companies to create jobs and invest in technology that bolster productivity.

2. Of course there will be less jobs when it is illegal to hire people below a certain level.

3. You cannot centrally plan a FREE system and devalue the dollar 98% and expect a good outcome.

Stavros

10-24-2015, 07:35 AM

[QUOTE=xxx617;1644296]What constitutes a fair share for the ultra rich? I have asked a few Bernie supporters this Q, and the response I get is that "it just needs to be more." The top 10% makes up 70% of the tax revenue in this country and the people in the poverty bracket pay a disproportionate amount. If Bernie's tax plan were to be implemented I believe it would hurt the middle class the most.

I agree with your point on him being a LBJ type and how he uses resentment. He plays to people's envy, just like Trump plays to the anger.

The spread of income in the Nordic countries is also misrepresented. Sweden, for instance, had a very prosperous pass. After they deregulated their economy in the late 19th C. real wages increased by 25%/decade from 1860-1910 and public spending was below 10%. These are staggering figures. Also, they managed to avoid wars and they have a small population. All of these factors in addition to free trade lead to better economic equality, not a 100% increase in gov't spending in the 70s-80s. Their 'socialism' only held them back, they went from the 4th richest nation to the 14th (1975-2000). An important thing to remember is that even during their peak of gov't spending they still had free trade.

As it pertains to wages and loss of jobs I believe the three main factors are taxation, the minimum wage, and the Federal Reserve.

1.More taxation means less savings for individuals and less opportunity for companies to create jobs and invest in technology that bolster productivity.

2. Of course there will be less jobs when it is illegal to hire people below a certain level.

3. You cannot centrally plan a FREE system and devalue the dollar 98% and expect a good outcome.[/QUOTE

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't believe the rate of taxation determines job creation, if that were the case how did the US economy grow when taxes were far higher in the 1950s and 1960s than they are now? Job losses under the Reagan administration through out-sourcing and off-shoring took place at a time of tax cuts and colossal Federal government expenditure, surely a contradiction? Yet many Americans continue to think Reagan -the architect of decline- was a great President.

As for the 'free market', look at steel in the UK. China has flooded the world market with steel so that its costs have fallen so low it doesn't make economic sense for anyone else to make it, yet the Chinese steel industry is government, not market regulated.

I think the 'Sanders socialism' is a re-run of the Great Society programme and the War on Poverty, and looks quite different from the socialist policies of Congressional representatives of the early 20th century, Victor Berger and Meyer London who make Sanders look like a TEA Party Republican. How times have changed!

xxx617

10-27-2015, 04:54 AM

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't believe the rate of taxation determines job creation, if that were the case how did the US economy grow when taxes were far higher in the 1950s and 1960s than they are now? Job losses under the Reagan administration through out-sourcing and off-shoring took place at a time of tax cuts and colossal Federal government expenditure, surely a contradiction? Yet many Americans continue to think Reagan -the architect of decline- was a great President.

As for the 'free market', look at steel in the UK. China has flooded the world market with steel so that its costs have fallen so low it doesn't make economic sense for anyone else to make it, yet the Chinese steel industry is government, not market regulated.

I think the 'Sanders socialism' is a re-run of the Great Society programme and the War on Poverty, and looks quite different from the socialist policies of Congressional representatives of the early 20th century, Victor Berger and Meyer London who make Sanders look like a TEA Party Republican. How times have changed!

The rate of taxation is not the main determining factor in job creation, but to dismiss it completely would be reckless of us. For example, look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff...it raised tariffs almost 60% on thousands of items...and what did the world do in response? The French shut us out and we also saw retaliation from other countries like Spain where they raised the tariff on American made cars so high it would be 100% certain none of our automobiles would be sold there.

Then we were given the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase up until that point. Generally, entrepreneurs will not seek out private investment when taxes become unbearable and they can stash their wealth in tax free g bonds and offshore accounts.

To address your statement about the 50's and 60's the tax code was much different then and changed in 1986. There were MANY loopholes that made it so those in the top bracket paid no where close to those percentages. Prosperity in the 1960's can be attributed to Federal Reserve policy which was inflationary. The money supply was much greater than in the 50s, which lead to a misallocation of resources and we paid for it in the 70's.

We agree on Reagan..no good.

Look at China's economy..they are in a dangerous bubble and they keep lowering interest rates to try and inflate the air back in. However, I'll take the long position and say they'll eventually turn things around, they want into the IMF basket, and I'm guessing it will happen fall 2016.

Stavros

10-27-2015, 05:38 PM

The rate of taxation is not the main determining factor in job creation, but to dismiss it completely would be reckless of us. For example, look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff...it raised tariffs almost 60% on thousands of items...and what did the world do in response? The French shut us out and we also saw retaliation from other countries like Spain where they raised the tariff on American made cars so high it would be 100% certain none of our automobiles would be sold there.

Then we were given the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase up until that point. Generally, entrepreneurs will not seek out private investment when taxes become unbearable and they can stash their wealth in tax free g bonds and offshore accounts.

To address your statement about the 50's and 60's the tax code was much different then and changed in 1986. There were MANY loopholes that made it so those in the top bracket paid no where close to those percentages. Prosperity in the 1960's can be attributed to Federal Reserve policy which was inflationary. The money supply was much greater than in the 50s, which lead to a misallocation of resources and we paid for it in the 70's.

We agree on Reagan..no good.

Look at China's economy..they are in a dangerous bubble and they keep lowering interest rates to try and inflate the air back in. However, I'll take the long position and say they'll eventually turn things around, they want into the IMF basket, and I'm guessing it will happen fall 2016.

I think in economic history at any one time one factor, such as taxation, may appear to be more influential than other -interest rates, for example- whereas one has to stand back and look at all the indicators, and on that economists, famously, never agree.

The Smoot-Hawley Act is one example, for while it is true that as a result of protectionist measures by 1932 the tariff on imports subject to duty had risen to 59.1%, it has been argued this was a cumulative consequence of other factors rather than the Smoot-Hawley Act in itself which is estimated to have increased tariffs by 40-48%, in price terms a rise of 6%. In fact, Douglas Irwin has argued the problem was that with the fall in the rate of imports, which had fallen 15% before he act was passed, the Act itself only reduced imports by about 4-6%, it was other factors in the years to 1932 which made the economic situation worse, such as falling production in the USA, and deflation.

There has been, and probably will continue to be arguments for and against protectionist measures -the USA has yet to repeal the Jones Act which is another example of protectionist legislation that has been on the books since the 1920s. The Conservative Party tore itself apart over the Corn Laws in the 19th century, again over Tariff Reform in the early 20th century just as, since the 1990s it has periodically turned against itself over the UK's membership of the EU, contrasting 'free trade' to European regulation -while cheerfully dismissing the Single Market Act and its four fundamental freedoms -of labour, goods, services and capital- apparently because freedom is not absolute and they want to limit, if not completely halt, the free movement of labour which does make one wonder what they think capitalism is.

The taxation issue is thus probably too subtle to pin down. The 1970s when the top rate of tax was around 70% saw the birth of both Microsoft (1975) and Apple (1976) at a time when people with money to invest you might think would have turned to safe investments, so clearly rates of taxation alone do not determine investor behaviour.

What this does is to caution us against neatly dividing Republican and Democrat parties on key issues such as slavery-v-abolition, big government-v-minimal govt, high taxes -v-low taxes. At the time Smoot-Hawley was an interventionist policy of the Republicans when the pre-Roosevelt Democrats were the party of free trade, something Mr Sanders may or may not know, or care about as the case may be.

It is a pity that none of the candidates in the US election are debating what it means to work, how work has changed in the last 25 years, what the full impact of technology is going to be over the next 25 years, and related issues. Just picking away at taxes, spending and welfare misses the point while it exposes the lack of imagination all round.

nitron

10-29-2015, 08:28 PM

He'll never get elected, because that's what we deserve ,maybe by accident things will improve. We've been lucky so far.

Stavros

11-07-2015, 11:36 AM

I have not seen broadcasts of the Democratic Forum, but I note this from a report in this morning's Guardian newspaper online in which it reports-
In a rare moment touching on foreign policy, Sanders, who opposed both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, argued against the Obama administration’s decision to put troops on the ground in Syria to combat Isis. “I don’t want to see us sucked into a quagmire in which there may be no end,” he said. Instead, the Vermont senator argued that regional allies like Saudi Arabia should take a larger role in fighting the terrorist group
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/06/hillary-clinton-outflank-liberal-rivals-democratic-forum

I think I might have mentioned it before but I find it hard to believe that anyone would recommend that Saudi Arabia become more involved when it has been one of the key states responsible for the extension of the conflict in Syria, and is currently engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen that has murdered thousands of people and displaced something like 70,000 people in a country where over a million are refugees from the Horn of Africa. I wonder where Sanders gets his intelligence from, as there seems to be so little of it on this issue. In the unlikely event of him becoming President, one can only hope he hands foreign policy decisions to someone who knows the region, as he clearly does not. Sanders is also passing the buck and dodging the role that the USA could play, as a deal-maker in diplomacy, not least as the Russian option looks like it is going to drag that country into the kind of conflict Putin (I assume) believed he could avoid.

Sanders ignorant on the Middle East, Ben Carson ignorant on the Pyramids. Why has this region been such a blind spot for aspiring Presidents when everyone who wants the job must know that it will be one of the top ten issues in their In Tray from day one?

Ben

11-23-2015, 04:31 AM

Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/socialism/

AshlynCreamher

12-02-2015, 05:11 AM

Bernie Sanders calling himself a socialist: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/socialism/

The National Socialist Party has been reborn with with Old-Man Sanders as the Mein Fuhrer - why am I no surprised?

Now all you Looney liberals can have wet dreams all day long about combatting Global Warming, saving the whales and defend a woman choice to murder/slaughter her unborn child because this defenseless life isn't really considered a life until after 36 months yet at the same time, an organism on Mars is definitely life!

broncofan

12-04-2015, 05:29 PM

I don't think there's anything dangerous about Bernie's stated views. But I think he does not have the characteristics or understanding of current events to be a good leader. Leaders have to make tough decisions and do unpopular things. They can't just stand on platitudes and ideals...

buttslinger

12-04-2015, 08:24 PM

Bernie would be the perfect President if all Americans were perfect. Great for the Whole of America if America were whole.
Never in a million years would the Koch Bros sit still if Bernie got nominated. The real terrorists in the World want CONTROL. Not freedom. In the 1930s the Koch Bros would literally kill Bernie Sanders in his bed.

Hillary is a bitch, she lies, but she definitely leans more toward Labor than Management. She will be a better deal maker than Trump, and she loathes Republicans.

You take what you can get.

http://s18.postimg.org/nfz9sndk9/fdr_wikicommons1.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
free upload (http://postimage.org/)

nitron

12-20-2015, 10:43 PM

In referance to the previous poster's "You take what you get":
I say don't vote for a 70's republican , vote for the next Left on the ballad, ie Greens or Socialists or whatever is Left of the Dems. If I'm not mistaken ,you guys have lot's to pick from. If Hillary is nominated.

trish

12-22-2015, 06:34 AM

A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the Republicans: remember Ralph Nader.

fred41

12-22-2015, 02:54 PM

A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the Republicans: remember Ralph Nader.

Statistically debatable.

ARandySavage

12-22-2015, 08:23 PM

Back in 2010, there was a bill created to audit the feds. Bernie, at the last hour, appealed it. Supporters of his do not care to remember that important item. That was the day he sold out and those of us paying attention all saw right through him.

To support Bernie and his platform, you have to have quite a bit of trust in our current government to give them control in the areas he is pushing for. I don't have that level of trust and it is doubtful I ever will.

sukumvit boy

04-27-2017, 02:29 AM

I always liked Bernie Saunders and I saw him again last night on The Charlie Rose Show as part of the show's "Donald Trump's First 100 Days" series . ( I would post the link here but it's not yet available online.)
God , what a breath of fresh air , statesmanship and reason after the caterwauling from Hillary and the psychopathology from Trump we've been subjected to the last 4 months !:banghead

We fucked up bad.:violin:violin

TS Bunny

05-02-2017, 03:49 AM

I like it a lot when a persons voting record actually goes with what they say.....especially when I like what they have to say , and they don't have to "evolve" into those positions :)

trish

05-02-2017, 04:47 AM

The voting booth is not a confessional. Vote strategically first, with your conscience second.

alreik

05-11-2017, 09:30 PM

But it is, no one can predict the future, thus making "the strategy" argument almost null, checking your conscience first is everything.

broncofan

05-11-2017, 09:35 PM

But it is, no one can predict the future, thus making "the strategy" argument almost null, checking your conscience first is everything.
Not being able to predict events with perfect accuracy is not a reason to avoid considering the likelihood of contingent events. Would you say that Gary Johnson is as likely to become President in 2020 as Donald Trump? It's not empirically knowable, but there is evidence that speaks to likelihood, even if it has a margin of error.

broncofan

05-11-2017, 09:40 PM

The reason I push back on this point is that the logical extension of your argument is that if I like Gary Johnson the best but see Donald Trump as my second favorite choice then I should vote for Gary Johnson because I have no way of knowing who is more likely to be elected. The same is true if I like Jill Stein best and Hillary second best.

alreik

05-11-2017, 09:58 PM

I am speaking from an ideological Pov, about how a structured democracy should work, as in that each individual picks a candidate that they feel is better to run the country, the system nowadays is a far cry from that, and is part of why someone like Trump won in the first place. Taking your pov means that, as a voter in NY I shouldn't bother going, because anyway the Democrats are gonna win, -pragmatically- I'm better off watching TV than voting. Same thing happened to many friends of mine, in what -turned out to be- swing states, eg Wisconsin etc., they live there, saw the signs, but never believed he'll win, and exercised their human and civil right in voting for someone they actually liked, rather than the distatesful probable winners .

broncofan

05-11-2017, 10:08 PM

Welcome to the forum and I agree with some of what you say here.

I didn't say one should ONLY base their decision on probabilities. I only said that it can't be irrelevant, because sometimes we know it's very unlikely we get what what we want. If, for instance, there is a .1% chance I get 100% of what I want and a 50% chance I get 85% of what I want, and in that 15% I'm giving up I do not sacrifice something that is crucial to liberty or justice, then I go with the better expected value.

But I think you're right there are some things we should all feel strongly enough about that we don't sacrifice our principles. For instance, I don't think someone in New York should vote because they think they'll be a deciding vote but because they want to exercise the franchise and think it's their civic duty to do so. So principles matter too. But I'm just not gonna vote for a clunker who has no chance of winning even if I agree with him/her all the way down the line.

alreik

05-11-2017, 10:28 PM

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree totally, I wasn't objecting to that point, just the arrangement of priorities, I said "almost null" not totally, I was just objecting to the priorities Trish stated.

I honestly believe that if everyone who voted Trump actually employed their conscience rather than let the predictions get to their head, and thought honestly about the good of the country, they wouldn't have gone for him, but he played the upstart outsider well enough, playing on that exact feeling, the Democrats played like they have won already, like it was a foregone conclusion and our poster girl was in anyway, that the numbers and facts etc says we'll win, which is exactly people didn't vote for it, no one likes to think their actions are not their own.

That's your right and it should be, thanks for the replies :)

trish

05-11-2017, 10:57 PM

But it is...

No it isn’t. The voting booth is not a confessional. It has no religious or moral significance. It a place where you vote on practical, public issues. Your vote is private to minimize the chance that it was solicited, forced or bought.

But it is, no one can predict the future, thus making "the strategy" argument almost null, checking your conscience first is everything.

Surely you see that Broncofan’s post #101 effectively counters your reply. Your nullity argument is way too general. Were it valid there would be never be any occasion to use strategy, yet mathematicians can show you strategic approaches not only to problems in which initial conditions are known and causation is well understood, but also to situations in which the state of play and the causative mechanisms are known only imperfectly.

I am speaking from an ideological Pov, about how a structured democracy should work, as in that each individual picks a candidate that they feel is better to run the country, the system nowadays is a far cry from that, and is part of why someone like Trump won in the first place. Taking your pov means that, as a voter in NY I shouldn't bother going, because anyway the Democrats are gonna win, -pragmatically- I'm better off watching TV than voting. Same thing happened to many friends of mine, in what -turned out to be- swing states, eg Wisconsin etc., they live there, saw the signs, but never believed he'll win, and exercised their human and civil right in voting for someone they actually liked, rather than the distatesful probable winners .

What kind of political structure would we have to have to ensure that if everyone just voted their conscience then we would get a leader who wasn’t a xenophobic, thin-skinned, egomaniac with the vocabulary of a fifth grader? Who would be have to banned from running for office? Who would have to be prevented from voting? There is no such system - although I agree ours could be improved; e.g. if we had no electoral college your vote would count regardless of location.

In this last election things were pretty damn clear. There was no way and there is no way now to save the purity of your soul: If you didn’t vote for Hillary, then you threw the election to Donald. Hope you like everything he’s doing.

I agree, it would be nice if we could all just vote our conscience. But that’s not the nature of reality - ever. Voting is important because people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. There will always be powerful interests vying for our power (the power of the people- given through our vote) and our wealth (our natural resources, and our institutional reserves). We will always have be smart, informed, and vigilant. We will always have to vote with our heads though it be motivated by the heart.

I would like to join Bronco in welcoming you to the boards. Sorry, if I didn’t agree with your first posts. Here’s to future agreements. :cheers:

gaysian71

05-11-2017, 10:57 PM

Because of the state of the election results, this has turned out to be an interesting thread. And I must say, if I knew things were going to turn out the way they did. I probably would have changed my party affiliation to Democrat and voted for Bernie. But I voted for Gary Johnson in the hopes that the libertarians could have gotten that all illusive 5% of the vote.

With that said. We all know that Hillary totally fucked up with that typical negative attention she got with the email server shit. Did she do it? Is she guilty? Who knows. But in the end it was more than likely that typical Clinton bullshit brought her down in the end. But that just seems to be the way that family operates. The only difference between her and her husband is that Bill is far more slippery than Hillary is or ever will be.

Then there's Donald Trump. What the hell happened there? He somehow managed to get all the poor white trash and the religious right to vote for him. When he first came into the limelight, I thought he was just going to play the court jester and go home after he lost in the primaries. Man, was I wrong. I guess that just goes to prove the power of the Internet and what happens when you get a troll who has mastered the art of trolling. I always thought that trolls were nothing more than someone to laugh at. I guess I learned my lesson.

Now we have this wonderful tax plan and wonderful Obamacare replacement. Who knows how that will turn out. But I have a feeling it won't be good for the hard working middle class or the poor. But, I can't wait to see the look on the faces of all the dumb fucks that voted for him. They will all still be unemployed and now they won't even have health insurance. Oh well, sucks for them. But at least all the jesus freaks out there will be able to discriminate against this of color and those who happen to be members of the lgbt community. Which by the way. Every guy here is a member by proxy. So if you are truly a Trump supporter. It's best if you stay in the closet and publicly stone a tranny the next time you see one. Anday the rest of you who support both trans and lgbt rights continue to do so. I know I will.

Oh and lastly. Bernie has it right when it comes to national health care. You absolutely have to take for profit insurance companies out of the equation. As long as there is profit involved with getting health care to everyone. For profit companies cannot participate. Unless of course everyone is willing to allow the USA to become bankrupt and be willing to bow down to the insurance companies corporate execs. At the rate things are going now, one of two things will happen. The insurance companies will bankrupt the country or only healthy people will be allowed to purchase insurance. But that just my opinion.

alreik

05-11-2017, 11:26 PM

Thanks for the welcome Trish :)

I wasn't referring to the booth as a confessional in the literal sense, as neither were you, just that working your conscience first and making proper judgment based on honesty and character evaluation is more important than a call for who is probably gonna win. I am not evaluating conscience as a heart vs mind entity, but a measure of judgment of what's right and wrong, rather than a betting scheme where the priority of voting goes to the highest possible winner.

Referring to the #101, do you think honestly that anyone who voted Trump did it with heart only?, I met a lot of NYers who are neither religious nuts or white trash etc who secretly supported Trump, just for that reason, freedom from judgment and a ball through the window kind of trolling.

I voted Bernie first, and went to the booth planning on Jill, but checked my conscience and that last part made me put Hillary, even fully knowing she was gonna steamroll NY. But just in the off chance, no one thought Wisconsin would be a swing state... But it Is a democracy which is what this is all about

This country should aspire to be more than accepting a cynical reality, no? I am not a hopeless idealist, just know that working to make things better with a clear plan and avoiding same old mistakes are the principles upon which this country is founded.

Again I hardly disagree -from a practical pov- with anything you stated pertaining to a certain point of time and space, just with the generalized aspect of it, it is always your choice and freedom, not the lesser of two evils, as it should be and as we should aspire it to be, which is why this thread exists, it is what Sanders was working for.

Thanks, nice quotes by the way :cheers: