2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
The Way to Stop Trump
Ross Douthat JAN. 23, 2016
THIS is, of course, a pointless column. The Republican presidential race is over, as you may have heard. Donald Trump has the nomination wrapped up — in the most luxurious, velveteen packaging you’ve ever seen. You’ve seen his polling lead: It’s yuge. You’ve watched his rallies: They’re even yuger. You’ve heard from the insiders, the panjandrums, the grand poo-bahs: He’s a man they can do business with; Bob Dole guarantees it. You’ve heard from Sarah Palin, and when has her political judgment ever failed?
But just in case at some point over the next few months of voting (a mere technicality, but you have to let the people have their fun), one of Trump’s remaining rivals (I can barely remember their names, to be honest) wanted to waste money running attack ads against him (a strange, antiquated concept, I know), it seems worth suggesting some ideas for how the poor hapless dear might go about it.
Thus far Trump has faced two main attacks. First, that he’s an unserious creep who’s temperamentally unsuited for the presidency. Second, that he’s not a real conservative: That he lacks the Reaganite faith, the commitment to the right-wing catechism.
These attacks haven’t worked. Of course, they haven’t been offered all that often, or at least not by anyone polling above the single digits. But if you’re going to take a run at the Inevitable Nominee between now and his coronation, you might as well try something new.
So think back to that misty time, two years gone, when one of Trump’s current rivals — Chris Christie, that’s the one — was seen as the presumptive Republican front-runner. What was the basis of Christie’s appeal? Simply this: He was a jerk, but he was your jerk. He was rude — but to people who deserved it. He was an S.O.B. — the S.O.B. the country needed.
Then think about why the “Bridgegate” scandal was devastating to his image. Not because petty political payback is the worst thing in the world. Not because it proved Christie wasn’t a “true conservative.”
No, it devastated Christie because it flipped his brand. Instead of the jerk who looks out for the average guy, he became the jerk whose allies had stuck it to commuters. Instead of the tough guy fighting for you, he became the tough guy whose goons would mire their constituents in traffic for a pointless little feud.
Now apply that model to the Inevitable Nominee. Calling Trump a creep and jerk and self-promoter clearly doesn’t work, because his voters have decided that someone with his business chops and middle-finger-first attitude is exactly what they need.
To attack him effectively, you have to go after the things that people like about him. You have to flip his brand.
So don’t tell people that he doesn’t know the difference between Kurds and the Quds Force. (They don’t either!) Tell people that he isn’t the incredible self-made genius that he plays on TV. Tell them about all the money he inherited from his daddy. Tell them about the bailouts that saved him from ruin. Tell them about all his cratered companies. Then find people who suffered from those fiascos — workers laid off following his bankruptcies, homeowners who bought through Trump Mortgage, people who ponied up for sham degrees from Trump University.
Except with Trump the trick is subtly different. Mitt was a numbers guy, so he was caricatured as a cruel Scrooge. But Trump is a salesman: That’s been a big part of his campaign’s success. And how do you flip a salesman’s brand? You persuade people that he’s a con artist, and they’re his marks.
Or least that’s what you would do, if the primary campaign weren’t over already. But since it is, I guess I’m just offering general-election advice. Maybe Bernie Sanders will take it.
Ross Douthat JAN. 23, 2016
THIS is, of course, a pointless column. The Republican presidential race is over, as you may have heard. Donald Trump has the nomination wrapped up — in the most luxurious, velveteen packaging you’ve ever seen. You’ve seen his polling lead: It’s yuge. You’ve watched his rallies: They’re even yuger. You’ve heard from the insiders, the panjandrums, the grand poo-bahs: He’s a man they can do business with; Bob Dole guarantees it. You’ve heard from Sarah Palin, and when has her political judgment ever failed?
But just in case at some point over the next few months of voting (a mere technicality, but you have to let the people have their fun), one of Trump’s remaining rivals (I can barely remember their names, to be honest) wanted to waste money running attack ads against him (a strange, antiquated concept, I know), it seems worth suggesting some ideas for how the poor hapless dear might go about it.
Thus far Trump has faced two main attacks. First, that he’s an unserious creep who’s temperamentally unsuited for the presidency. Second, that he’s not a real conservative: That he lacks the Reaganite faith, the commitment to the right-wing catechism.
These attacks haven’t worked. Of course, they haven’t been offered all that often, or at least not by anyone polling above the single digits. But if you’re going to take a run at the Inevitable Nominee between now and his coronation, you might as well try something new.
So think back to that misty time, two years gone, when one of Trump’s current rivals — Chris Christie, that’s the one — was seen as the presumptive Republican front-runner. What was the basis of Christie’s appeal? Simply this: He was a jerk, but he was your jerk. He was rude — but to people who deserved it. He was an S.O.B. — the S.O.B. the country needed.
Then think about why the “Bridgegate” scandal was devastating to his image. Not because petty political payback is the worst thing in the world. Not because it proved Christie wasn’t a “true conservative.”
No, it devastated Christie because it flipped his brand. Instead of the jerk who looks out for the average guy, he became the jerk whose allies had stuck it to commuters. Instead of the tough guy fighting for you, he became the tough guy whose goons would mire their constituents in traffic for a pointless little feud.
Now apply that model to the Inevitable Nominee. Calling Trump a creep and jerk and self-promoter clearly doesn’t work, because his voters have decided that someone with his business chops and middle-finger-first attitude is exactly what they need.
To attack him effectively, you have to go after the things that people like about him. You have to flip his brand.
So don’t tell people that he doesn’t know the difference between Kurds and the Quds Force. (They don’t either!) Tell people that he isn’t the incredible self-made genius that he plays on TV. Tell them about all the money he inherited from his daddy. Tell them about the bailouts that saved him from ruin. Tell them about all his cratered companies. Then find people who suffered from those fiascos — workers laid off following his bankruptcies, homeowners who bought through Trump Mortgage, people who ponied up for sham degrees from Trump University.
Except with Trump the trick is subtly different. Mitt was a numbers guy, so he was caricatured as a cruel Scrooge. But Trump is a salesman: That’s been a big part of his campaign’s success. And how do you flip a salesman’s brand? You persuade people that he’s a con artist, and they’re his marks.
Or least that’s what you would do, if the primary campaign weren’t over already. But since it is, I guess I’m just offering general-election advice. Maybe Bernie Sanders will take it.
Wasn't it Goldman Sachs who took massive risks with their investors money on the CDOs? Didn't they take tax payers money when the govt offered them TARP?
Frontrunner
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot-somebody-support/
Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'
BERNIE SANDERS: Let me give you an idea of how corrupt this system is. Goldman Sachs recently fined $5 billion. Goldman Sachs has given this country two secretaries of Treasury, one under Republicans, one under Democrats.
The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Secretary Clinton, and you're not the only one, I don't mean to just point the finger at you, you've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year. I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law, not one of their executives is prosecuted, while kids who smoke marijuana get a jail time.
Hillary needs to answer this first.
The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Secretary Clinton, and you're not the only one, I don't mean to just point the finger at you, you've received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year. I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law, not one of their executives is prosecuted, while kids who smoke marijuana get a jail time.
Hillary needs to answer this first.
That is a good article. It further reemphasises for me that Bernie is the President the US needs, but not the one they will choose.
I find it amazing that a country so hung up on being able to overcome a tyrannical government, are content for that same government, and themselves, to be puppets for tyrannical big business.
That's a good way of summarising it. It seems to be a whole different way of thinking to the one we're used to in most European countries.
I was reading another forum I visit which has predominantly American users, and they were discussing the single-payer proposals for health. The consensus was that it's ridiculous to ask one citizen to pay for another citizen's healthcare through taxes - they felt they should only be taking responsibility for themselves. They wanted to keep a plethora of big medical insurance businesses because they saw it as better choice for the individual.
It just does not seem real. Some one has to make a documentary of his campaign and then pass it off as a satire only to reveal that it all as real in the end.
Channel 4 have done almost exactly that. The Mad World of Donald Trump. Tuesday at 9pm.
And therein lies the rub. It's that sick and disgustingly selfish attitude that not only can I not abide, I cannot begin to fathom or understand. Especially when the vast majority against Universal healthcare are poor/average Republicans and the religious right who pride themselves on compassion for others. They can't see the wood for the trees and cannot see that UHC would benefit EVERYONE and that they would pay less for that system than they do now for the insurance based system. If the rich (or anyone else) doesn't like nor want it they could pay to go private and still be better off, but all the time you have money in the Political system like you do in the States, and have a scared and misinformed public, you have very little chance of getting it through.
gawn Trump!
they have been brainwashed.
you are right in your thinking. But I still hope Bernie beats the odds.
That's what every investment bank did, and GS was actually the one who noticed everything was f'd first, and started reversing their positions... by selling them to clients. It's the f'd up inherent conflict of interest in investment banking. So they were some of the least hurt by the crisis, but still took the TARP loan.
I was just pointing out that everyone is fixed on who gets GS money, and if that's an issue then so is taking money from Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and so on. But none of the names gets brought up, just Goldman.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/eco...-sanders-policies-cost-america-nothing-video/
Popular Economist Robert Reich Explains That Bernie Sanders’ Programs Are A Good Deal For Americans
Recently, an article was published by the Wall Street Journal attempting to scare Americans into believing that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would add $18 trillion to the United States debt over a period of 10 years. While that figure is mainly true, it didn’t take economists long to sort out that Sanders policies would actually cost virtually nothing in the long run and would even save Americans $42 trillion we’d normally spend on health care in a decade. In fact, we’d spend more without these government programs.
Here is the image the WSJ used to explain the breakdown for Bernie Sanders’ federal spending and policies:
A financial breakdown of what Senator Bernie Sanders’ policies would cost Americans.Wall Street Journal
Robert Reich, a political economist, said so many people asked him to explain if Sanders’ plan would balloon the federal deficit and dash the dreams of Sanders supporters everywhere that he felt it necessary to respond. Reich said the WSJ’s claim was “bogus” because they dropped a scary number with no further analysis of the impact such policies would have on the country.
Robert Reich explains:
Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
In fact, Americans already pay four times more for private health insurance and other social services than people pay in taxes for the same services in democratic socialist countries. So when people claim, “Socialist countries pay high taxes!” We can set them straight and say, “We pay higher prices to fund greedy fecks’ lavish lifestyles.”
Robert Reich continued:
“The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
“Many of these other “costs” would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families — for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.”
Think about the implications that shifting the burden of paying for expensive services like health care and education off the backs of the working class and businesses will have on our economy.
The working class are the drivers of the economy. They are far greater in number and spend most of their money on products and services in order to cover their basic needs. Allowing them to keep their money in regards to insurance, child care and college puts more money in their pockets to spend. When the working class has more money to spend, they spend it, or they save it for rainy days and retirement. This creates greater consumer confidence and better financial security, and those at the top also fare well, because now more people are buying up their products and services. The demand for these products and services creates a need for more jobs, and voila, the economy is strong.
Lastly, Robert Reich says:
“Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
“That Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie’s status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.”
So Robert Reich thinks that Sanders has the one percent scared out of their wits because his message is resonating so well. Rupert Murdoch can’t seem to scare people with the word “socialism” any longer, now he’s trying a more nuanced approach by spreading misinformation that our national debt will skyrocket under Bernie which will “cost” everyone more money when it won’t, because he really doesn’t want Americans to figure out that trickle-down economics is a sham.
But, Americans are waking up and realizing that their government belongs to them, not the rich, and that when the working class is stronger the country gets stronger. A weak country is apathetic and will relinquish control to those with self-serving agendas. Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution, regardless if he becomes the democratic nominee or not, and it has the greedy class of this country scared out of their wits because they see the majority of Americans are now fighting to take back that control — and that’s a good thing.
Robert Reich has a new book coming out called Saving Capitalism which hits shelves Sept. 29
Popular Economist Robert Reich Explains That Bernie Sanders’ Programs Are A Good Deal For Americans
Recently, an article was published by the Wall Street Journal attempting to scare Americans into believing that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would add $18 trillion to the United States debt over a period of 10 years. While that figure is mainly true, it didn’t take economists long to sort out that Sanders policies would actually cost virtually nothing in the long run and would even save Americans $42 trillion we’d normally spend on health care in a decade. In fact, we’d spend more without these government programs.
Here is the image the WSJ used to explain the breakdown for Bernie Sanders’ federal spending and policies:
A financial breakdown of what Senator Bernie Sanders’ policies would cost Americans.Wall Street Journal
Robert Reich, a political economist, said so many people asked him to explain if Sanders’ plan would balloon the federal deficit and dash the dreams of Sanders supporters everywhere that he felt it necessary to respond. Reich said the WSJ’s claim was “bogus” because they dropped a scary number with no further analysis of the impact such policies would have on the country.
Robert Reich explains:
Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
In fact, Americans already pay four times more for private health insurance and other social services than people pay in taxes for the same services in democratic socialist countries. So when people claim, “Socialist countries pay high taxes!” We can set them straight and say, “We pay higher prices to fund greedy fecks’ lavish lifestyles.”
Robert Reich continued:
“The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
“Many of these other “costs” would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families — for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.”
Think about the implications that shifting the burden of paying for expensive services like health care and education off the backs of the working class and businesses will have on our economy.
The working class are the drivers of the economy. They are far greater in number and spend most of their money on products and services in order to cover their basic needs. Allowing them to keep their money in regards to insurance, child care and college puts more money in their pockets to spend. When the working class has more money to spend, they spend it, or they save it for rainy days and retirement. This creates greater consumer confidence and better financial security, and those at the top also fare well, because now more people are buying up their products and services. The demand for these products and services creates a need for more jobs, and voila, the economy is strong.
Lastly, Robert Reich says:
“Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
“That Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie’s status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.”
So Robert Reich thinks that Sanders has the one percent scared out of their wits because his message is resonating so well. Rupert Murdoch can’t seem to scare people with the word “socialism” any longer, now he’s trying a more nuanced approach by spreading misinformation that our national debt will skyrocket under Bernie which will “cost” everyone more money when it won’t, because he really doesn’t want Americans to figure out that trickle-down economics is a sham.
But, Americans are waking up and realizing that their government belongs to them, not the rich, and that when the working class is stronger the country gets stronger. A weak country is apathetic and will relinquish control to those with self-serving agendas. Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution, regardless if he becomes the democratic nominee or not, and it has the greedy class of this country scared out of their wits because they see the majority of Americans are now fighting to take back that control — and that’s a good thing.
Robert Reich has a new book coming out called Saving Capitalism which hits shelves Sept. 29
Robert Reich.....
http://reverbpress.com/politics/eco...-sanders-policies-cost-america-nothing-video/
Popular Economist Robert Reich Explains That Bernie Sanders’ Programs Are A Good Deal For Americans
Recently, an article was published by the Wall Street Journal attempting to scare Americans into believing that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders would add $18 trillion to the United States debt over a period of 10 years. While that figure is mainly true, it didn’t take economists long to sort out that Sanders policies would actually cost virtually nothing in the long run and would even save Americans $42 trillion we’d normally spend on health care in a decade. In fact, we’d spend more without these government programs.
Here is the image the WSJ used to explain the breakdown for Bernie Sanders’ federal spending and policies:
A financial breakdown of what Senator Bernie Sanders’ policies would cost Americans.Wall Street Journal
Robert Reich, a political economist, said so many people asked him to explain if Sanders’ plan would balloon the federal deficit and dash the dreams of Sanders supporters everywhere that he felt it necessary to respond. Reich said the WSJ’s claim was “bogus” because they dropped a scary number with no further analysis of the impact such policies would have on the country.
Robert Reich explains:
Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).
In fact, Americans already pay four times more for private health insurance and other social services than people pay in taxes for the same services in democratic socialist countries. So when people claim, “Socialist countries pay high taxes!” We can set them straight and say, “We pay higher prices to fund greedy fecks’ lavish lifestyles.”
Robert Reich continued:
“The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.
“Many of these other “costs” would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families — for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn’t be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.”
Think about the implications that shifting the burden of paying for expensive services like health care and education off the backs of the working class and businesses will have on our economy.
The working class are the drivers of the economy. They are far greater in number and spend most of their money on products and services in order to cover their basic needs. Allowing them to keep their money in regards to insurance, child care and college puts more money in their pockets to spend. When the working class has more money to spend, they spend it, or they save it for rainy days and retirement. This creates greater consumer confidence and better financial security, and those at the top also fare well, because now more people are buying up their products and services. The demand for these products and services creates a need for more jobs, and voila, the economy is strong.
Lastly, Robert Reich says:
“Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
“That Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie’s status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.”
So Robert Reich thinks that Sanders has the one percent scared out of their wits because his message is resonating so well. Rupert Murdoch can’t seem to scare people with the word “socialism” any longer, now he’s trying a more nuanced approach by spreading misinformation that our national debt will skyrocket under Bernie which will “cost” everyone more money when it won’t, because he really doesn’t want Americans to figure out that trickle-down economics is a sham.
But, Americans are waking up and realizing that their government belongs to them, not the rich, and that when the working class is stronger the country gets stronger. A weak country is apathetic and will relinquish control to those with self-serving agendas. Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution, regardless if he becomes the democratic nominee or not, and it has the greedy class of this country scared out of their wits because they see the majority of Americans are now fighting to take back that control — and that’s a good thing.
Robert Reich has a new book coming out called Saving Capitalism which hits shelves Sept. 29
It won't ever happen because of the aforementioned gridlock problems. If you think the GOP blowback for Obamacare was bad, just wait until Sanders attempts to turn the US into a full on socialist, nanny state. That's not what the US has been in the past and its completely inconsistent with having a free-market based economy.
sure there will be blowback.Germany does not have a freemarket economy? But we must do what is right for All. Keep fighting the good fight. For until all of us are Free None of us is free.
From what I understand, if a democrat had succeeded lbj or Nixon, this wouldn't be a fantasy debate but a reality... His policies were certainly headed along that trajectory.
You need a culture that actually wants such a system. The US doesn't have such a culture. It is split down the middle between the pre-Obama care model and the current Obama care model. The drift at the moment is to undo Obama care, not to further entrench it by going single payer.
The Republicans all hated Social Security and Medicare at first. Ordinary people don't spend a lot of time on politics. they trust the people they elect. People are basically decent. When leaders tell them they are being threatened by people who don't look like them, they get scared. Yes. It is culture. But when I see young people, I see hope. They are accepting of each other. We must keep speaking to the Truth for teh good of all. It may not change this cycle. But it Will change. We must keep trying. I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee as will many others. But voices like Bernies should not be shut off.
Nobody is suggesting he should be shut off. He's being received far better than anyone thought. The trouble is, his policies can't be implemented at which point the question becomes how the can the US conduct effective governance for the people's affairs without the current gridlock. The only way to do so is to go with establishment politicians who know how to work with the other side, instead of propose policies that sound good but will never be implemented. This is why Cruz and Sanders aren't likely to accomplish any agenda if elected.
So you have faith in the party that has been pre-emptively stopping her from running for 4 years to work alongside the person who publicly and proudly called the entire party her enemy?
Sanders was praised for his bipartisan compromise by McCain himself.
Finally, because they stuck to their beliefs, compromise now means operating on the right-wing's terms. Isn't it possible a sanders presidency would shift the terms themselves? The majority of the republican house is so far to the right that negotiation is like a hostage crisis.
She has far better chance than Sanders at reaching bi-partisan governance. Even though they don't like her, her policies are far more digestible, especially in terms of economics and foreign policy.
Meaningless in the big picture. Republicans will die before approving any socialist policies.
No, it wouldn't just as an Obama presidency didn't. You have to change the culture and social norms before attempting to radically change policy as Sanders is attempting. If the public don't want it, then you have to propose some sort of workable compromise where all stakeholders have some say in the final policy, which will never happen with European style socialist policies Sanders is proposing.
You might as well change the structure of government if Sanders wins too, from a federal republic to just a republic. Because if the Federal government does so much, has a budget so huge compared to states, it'll be as fake a federal republic as Brazil.
Reich's whole argument ignores that there is a difference between families' accounts and government's accounts. You might save... if the government is efficient, which I don't think has ever been the case in human history, but it'll be one huge bloated government, the fortunes of the country even more dependent on those who occupy office (you know, the people who would be elected after Sanders).
Free college? Yeah, that'll be lovely, so workers in all industries spend 4 years getting women's studies degrees. Bad decisions have costs, and they must continue to have. Subsidy students to get STEM degrees, subsidy them to go to technical school especially if they'd be marginal at college. Don't give everyone a free ride, that's a subsidy to terrible decisions, like going to a terrible college, to get a useless degree.
Healthcare I'm not opposed to, although I do think it could be handled by states.
What really irks me is the whole narrative. There is a fundamental economic challenge in the 21st century related to technology and productivity, which is driving labor productivity and therefore wages to diverge more than any time before. The solution doesn't lie in wishing that its the 60s again, and that people will be working in low value added industries that are now in Asia, Latam, etc. It doesn't lie in scapegoating the rich either. There's rich people who do shady stuff, practice price fixing, massively evade taxes, but all those things should continue to be pursued by authorities and legislation. There's rich people who're just really good lawyers, engineers, architects, programmers, managers, scientists, investors. You push this narrative that all the rich are taking from the poor and the middle class, and any remaining national unity is gone.
Reich's whole argument ignores that there is a difference between families' accounts and government's accounts. You might save... if the government is efficient, which I don't think has ever been the case in human history, but it'll be one huge bloated government, the fortunes of the country even more dependent on those who occupy office (you know, the people who would be elected after Sanders).
Free college? Yeah, that'll be lovely, so workers in all industries spend 4 years getting women's studies degrees. Bad decisions have costs, and they must continue to have. Subsidy students to get STEM degrees, subsidy them to go to technical school especially if they'd be marginal at college. Don't give everyone a free ride, that's a subsidy to terrible decisions, like going to a terrible college, to get a useless degree.
Healthcare I'm not opposed to, although I do think it could be handled by states.
What really irks me is the whole narrative. There is a fundamental economic challenge in the 21st century related to technology and productivity, which is driving labor productivity and therefore wages to diverge more than any time before. The solution doesn't lie in wishing that its the 60s again, and that people will be working in low value added industries that are now in Asia, Latam, etc. It doesn't lie in scapegoating the rich either. There's rich people who do shady stuff, practice price fixing, massively evade taxes, but all those things should continue to be pursued by authorities and legislation. There's rich people who're just really good lawyers, engineers, architects, programmers, managers, scientists, investors. You push this narrative that all the rich are taking from the poor and the middle class, and any remaining national unity is gone.
Firstly, you are assuming Sanders cannot compromise. You don't know this. If he becomes President he would have the mandate from the majority of Americans. It really would be a minority who do not wish to implement the will of the majority.
Yes. It is a reality that he will have a fight on his hands. So will anyone who is not totally insane and wants to govern. That does not mean we surrender from the start. I was having this same discussion with a pragmatic friend of mine.
I remembered what Ghandi said. "Never accept injustice from anyone".
It is injustice that there is such poverty in the richest country on earth that children go to bed hungry.
It is injustice that people who want to work do not get a living wage.
It is injustice that so few control the lives of so many because they own Congress and the Courts.
No movement starts out with millions. It always starts with a few. In the end what is right will prevail.
I am going to do what is Right.
Trump ahead in Iowa in latest (fox) poll
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-iowa-still-dominates-in-new-hampshire.html
Still way ahead in new Hampshire
It's all going to be as good as over by "super Tuesday"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-iowa-still-dominates-in-new-hampshire.html
Still way ahead in new Hampshire
It's all going to be as good as over by "super Tuesday"
Sanders leading in the latest CBS Iowa Poll.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/296490961/CBS-News-Battleground-Tracker-Iowa-January-2016
Sanders ahead by 19 in the NH CBS poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/296490961/CBS-News-Battleground-Tracker-Iowa-January-2016
Sanders ahead by 19 in the NH CBS poll
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html
You're assuming their opposition is reasonable. Obamacare is repackaged Roneycare while she was to the left of that. They opposed it like their lives depended on it. Remember, how he spent his 2 years of supermajorities pleading for bipartisanship. Ironically, he's almost got the same amount of work done by pure unilateral actions in his last 2 years.
I would change that sentence to any sensible policy, regardless of how centrist or left-wing it is.
Again, Obama is centre, at best centre-left, who used his youth and the moment (Bush, Iraq, financial crisis) to appear as the change candidate. His policies by themselves are in line with Bill Clinton, the tallest "third-way" leader.
About the public: http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/ *
I will not, despite those polls, argue that explicitly progressive/redistributive policies are popular. I'll just argue that there is a climate where they could be pushed through with support. That there are enough people who might support them.
In England, Atlee won his election quite narrowly, and his health minister pushed the NHS through the dogged opposition of most doctors. Today the doctors are broadly in favour of it.
*There is an updated version of this, will post it if I can find it
Finally, I'm tired of defending/justifying Sanders. Unlike LvG, I enjoy counterattacking 
So, Sanders said that he wouldn't appoint a judge who supports Citizens United and you attacked him. But Hillary has said the same thing. And not only that, while opposing the influence of money in politics and super-PACs, she has the 2nd largest super-PAC in the country.
Why couldn't she have run a campaign against money in politics by actually doing what Sanders has done successfully - relying on small donors? He's almost matching her at the moment, and it's fair to say that if she would have, any challenge to the left would have been impossible. She would have the added advantage of not being beholden to her donors, and in the general election, attacks by Trump about the power of her donors (and how pure he is) would not exist.
So, Sanders said that he wouldn't appoint a judge who supports Citizens United and you attacked him. But Hillary has said the same thing. And not only that, while opposing the influence of money in politics and super-PACs, she has the 2nd largest super-PAC in the country.
Why couldn't she have run a campaign against money in politics by actually doing what Sanders has done successfully - relying on small donors? He's almost matching her at the moment, and it's fair to say that if she would have, any challenge to the left would have been impossible. She would have the added advantage of not being beholden to her donors, and in the general election, attacks by Trump about the power of her donors (and how pure he is) would not exist.
Yes, that's a pretty safe assumption given that the GOP are further to the right than ever today with the likes of Cruz, Beck, and Limbaugh setting the agenda, so any compromise with what they consider an extreme left wing socialist is pure pie in the sky fanaticism.
Finally, I'm tired of defending/justifying Sanders. Unlike LvG, I enjoy counterattacking
So, Sanders said that he wouldn't appoint a judge who supports Citizens United and you attacked him. But Hillary has said the same thing. And not only that, while opposing the influence of money in politics and super-PACs, she has the 2nd largest super-PAC in the country.
Why couldn't she have run a campaign against money in politics by actually doing what Sanders has done successfully - relying on small donors? He's almost matching her at the moment, and it's fair to say that if she would have, any challenge to the left would have been impossible. She would have the added advantage of not being beholden to her donors, and in the general election, attacks by Trump about the power of her donors (and how pure he is) would not exist.
I'm all for a strike down of citizens united, but I think its wrong to select judges based on simple issue litmus tests. They are there to interpret the laws not write new ones based on the will of whoever nominates them.
Democracy is about the will of the majority, no matter the labels.
Any President should be able to appoint any judge based on the platform he or she runs on. That is what elections are about.
They aren't supposed to select judges for specific issues, even if many wind up being considered liberal or conservative. Sanders needs to stop pandering in this regard, just as various GOPers have done over the years about abortion, same sex marriage etc.
I agree. In India judges are appointed with no interference from parliament and minimal interference from the executive. I know @crappy thinks it's not a good system (because of lack of oversight) but the political/ideological lines that have appeared in the US SC are not openly present here. Plus judges must retire like anyone else, and this means a Scalia or Rehnquist cannot for years destroy progressive causes (or Brennan do the opposite)
I think the judiciary should be fully independent, and when I learned that presidents can appoint judges I was astounded.
EDITED: for stupid mistakes
The key is this.This is what the election will determine.
Finally, I want to add that the reason my (internet based, irrelevant) support for Sanders will not go away is because he is the 1st high-profile US politician to talk about Mossadegh.
Which is as close as you can get to the foreign policy original sin.
Which is as close as you can get to the foreign policy original sin.
Jesus Christ. You are asking for justice and equality amongst investment banks. feck me!!!
- Status