Comments 1 - 40 of 54 Next » Last » Search these comments
When the Democrats abandoned the majority White Working Class and didn't even try to attract them with positive policies.
Except race-baiting, which the Clintons engaged in with "Sentencing Reform" and "Welfare Reform". And again in 2008 in the Dem Primaries, when Hillary ran as Annie Oakley against the evil Gun Banning (and Black!!!!) Obama. The hilarious thing is now that it's 2016, she's doing the exact opposite with Bernie. She's painting him as Charleton Heston and too "White" while she claims the Gun Control stance and "Pro-Minority".
It's a testament to Team Player Stupdiity that the biggest democratic race baiting family does great with Blacks.
It's amazing that almost no Dems have supported tariffs. Seems like there are a lot of votes in the Rust Belt to be had with that simple policy. Besides the fact that it's good policy.
Besides the fact that it's good policy.
Yeah, it's so obvious and simple. Any 10 year old can explain why we need tarrifs. And the higher the better.
Maybe we don't need to build a wall just on our southern border. Maybe we need a virtual wall around our entire country. And we should stop being the worlds policeman. LEt's lower our defense spending down to the same level as, you know, about average. Then build our virtual wall, and whatever happens in the rest of the world happens.
It's simple really.
It's amazing that almost no Dems have supported tariffs. Seems like there are a lot of votes in the Rust Belt to be had with that simple policy. Besides the fact that it's good policy.
Silicon Valley donors. Apple, Corning, and Samsung make their goods abroad.
Yeah, it's so obvious and simple. Any 10 year old can explain why we need tarrifs. And the higher the better.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. How about 15% Tariff? If you can actually import raw materials, produce, ship, distribute from Long Beach and then retail at the same quality with a 15% Tariff, fair play to you. But if you can't, it's not worth the incredible Social Cost of losing good manufacturing Jobs at Carrier and other places.
Ruined lives, depressed communities, loss of property taxes...
$9/hr No Benefits Walmart Warehouse jobs don't replace $14/hr + Benefits Factory jobs.
It's amazing that almost no Dems have supported tariffs.
Not really. Dems want as many people as possible on welfare programs.
Seems like there are a lot of votes in the Rust Belt to be had with that simple policy. Besides the fact that it's good policy.
Those people will be voting for Trump.
Even if you’re disappointed in what President Obama accomplished, he substantially raised taxes on the rich and dramatically expanded the social safety net; significantly tightened financial regulation; encouraged and oversaw a surge in renewable energy; moved forward on diplomacy with Iran.
That's the surface of it. As explained by the 'establishment' NYT.
Dig deeper and corporations control almost every policies and Democrats barely occasionally pretend to oppose it while taking the money.
The Democrats defend only union members, illegal immigrants, feminists and transgendered people. That's about it.
The current system has quite simply stopped working in favor of the average Americans.
Trade, Wall Street regulations, housing, education, immigration, etc, etc... on all these subjects Democrats are routinely betraying the average Americans.
Pointing out the other side is worse is a tired and specious argument.
I'm tired of hearing "we're trying but we can't do much", but when comes the time to actually make a choice that counts between the like of Clinton and a Sanders, they're like: "Sanders is extreme, unrealistic and 'populist'."
WTF! By 'populist' they mean he represents the interest of the people. Oh yeah... that's really EXTREME in a democracy. That's totally UNREASONABLE.
How about 15% Tariff? If you can actually import raw materials, produce, ship, distribute from Long Beach and then retail at the same quality with a 15% Tariff, fair play to you.
Raw materials, like oil, can can excluded from tariffs. Other stuff on a case by case basic. No way something like a car should be imported without a 100% tariff. We can make those ourselves.
Dems want as many people as possible on welfare programs.
Yes, everyone knows this is the core foundation policy of the democratic party. Well, that and of course the destruction of the family unit, and increasing abortion and homosexuality as much as possible, and of course let's not forget taking away everyone's guns.
No way something like a car should be imported without a 100% tariff. We can make those ourselves.
Then do we let them make their cars here ? Which in many cases they already do ?
WTF! By 'populist' they mean he represents the interest of the people. Oh yeah... that's really EXTREME in a democracy. That's totally UNREASONABLE.
When people note Sanders is extreme, I think they mean that he's relatively extreme, and that therefore even if he's making a decent showing in the primaries, he won't be electable in the general election.
That's my one and only problem with Sanders. I guess against Trump it might be interesting. But against a mainstream republican candidate, such as a Romney, or a Bush, I don't see how he stands a chance.
I know it's shocking, but some people are going to make their primary vote choice based (at least in part) on who they think has a good chance of winning in the fall.
I'm old enough to remember McGovern.
Then do we let them make their cars here ?
Yes. Duh. Along with the engine, transmission, and most other parts which also should be made in USA. If Honda and Toyota can make a majority of their cars sold here in the US, so can the rest. If they need to import some low volume cars for product mix, then we can have a cap and trade type of thing where they are only allowed to import cars if they have offsetting exports from the US.
I'm old enough to remember McGovern.
Good then you're old enough to realize that Trump is our Reagan.
WTF! By 'populist' they mean he represents the interest of the people. Oh yeah... that's really EXTREME in a democracy. That's totally UNREASONABLE.
Yep, the Populist Freakout is a shit argument.
Jefferson and Jackson thought a few years of basic literacy and numeracy, the ability to read a broadsheet, was enough to produce an educated electorate among the yeomanry and tradesmen. This was an age where 99% of the population had less than what we would consider a 6th Grade Education, if any formal education at all, and only the top 1% had anything approaching a HS equivalency, much less College, education.
Those who make the anti-populist argument today are essentially insisting that a country where 90% of the native-born population has a HS Diploma or equivalent and almost half of the population under 40 has a tertiary degree, is incapable of making Democratic Decisions are simply beyond-the-pale elitists. Does 90% of the population need a Master's Degree or equivalent before they can be "Trusted to vote properly"?
When people note Sanders is extreme, I think they mean that he's relatively extreme, and that therefore even if he's making a decent showing in the primaries, he won't be electable in the general election.
What happens in a Trump vs. Sanders matchup?
Don't you think that would be "permission" for the two parties to shift from the current paradigm?
If it IS a Trump vs. Sanders race, and the both parties' Establishment digs in their heels against populism, we could be facing America's Greatest Crisis, and it would be caused by Stubborn Elites who refuse to back down in the face of unproductive, anti-General Welfare Policies that benefit only them.
How America Was Lost
It was meant to be a three hour tour, but the weather got rough and the tiny ship was tossed.
If not for Obama the minnow would be lost. He and Ben Bernanke marooned us all on a desert island and now we all take turns rubbing Thurston Howel's feet.
When people note Sanders is extreme, I think they mean that he's relatively extreme, and that therefore even if he's making a decent showing in the primaries, he won't be electable in the general election.
That's a stupid argument. If you accept this you basically condone doing nothing in the face of what is happening in this country.
www.youtube.com/embed/l3M4br46s7A
Yeah, it's so obvious and simple. Any 10 year old can explain why we need tarrifs. And the higher the better.
Maybe we don't need to build a wall just on our southern border. Maybe we need a virtual wall around our entire country. And we should stop being the worlds policeman. LEt's lower our defense spending down to the same level as, you know, about average. Then build our virtual wall, and whatever happens in the rest of the world happens.
It's simple really.
If you'd like to have a discussion about the merits and problems with tariffs, I'm more than willing to participate. Judging by your post, however, you prefer to be sarcastic and dismissive--likely because you don't want to discuss the truth.
Because the truth is we've tried low/no tariffs for 30+ years now and all it's gotten us is high unemployment, low wages, higher corporate profits, and higher inequality.
Oh yeah--and cheap crap from China.
I'll take more jobs and higher wages over cheaper products made overseas any day.
of course the destruction of the family unit
unintended consequence of LBJ's 'Great America' but not a 'core foundation policy' by any means
Marcus are you a union member?
I say we reduce the burden on taxpayers by eliminating Tenure offering H1-Bs to Math Teachers from the Phillipennes, India, Jamaica, Barbados, Kenya, etc.
Why shouldn't Marcus compete internationally to make a living? Can he beat an H-1B who is happy to make $23,000 a year with no benefits ?
Why should math teachers be insulated from the positive, happy, win-win-win wave of Globalization?
If it's good enough for the rustbelt workers, it's good enough for California Educators, amirite?
After all, when they came for the factory workers, I said nothing...
When they came for the nurses, I said nothing...
When they came for the IT guys, I said nothing...
Now they're here for the teachers, and nobody left to say anything for Marcus...
Not sure if racism is that bad (as it was years ago).
In my mind, the biggest Malinvestment that we did in the 90s was the CRA and Subprime/Ninja Loans. If we instead would have invested $5T into jobs, alt. eng., education, and infrastructure, people who were poor could have closed in on middle class and then paid normal loans back at 5-6%. It also further discouraged job investment for the poor, because, - hey you could become rich off your house/atm.
Instead, we had a distortive bubble created by a egoist social engineer, who although he meant well did not understand what ponzi scheme would unfold:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
To me this may have cost more than the wars, causes c
That's a stupid argument. If you accept this you basically condone doing nothing in the face of what is happening in this country.
For one thing, I wasn't making the argument, I was just translating. As for how stupid it is ?
I don't know, I think the people that voted for Nader in 2000, causing Bush to be elected were stupid, for essentially following your reasoning.
A voter might be wrong in their assessment that Bernie is unelectable, but voting for Hillary (in the primary) because of that assessment is hardly stupid.
I don't know, I think the people that voted for Nader in 2000, causing Bush to be elected were stupid, for essentially following your reasoning.
This line of argument assumes Hillary is a better candidate in the general election which I think is very questionable.
1. Sanders polls as well if not better against most of the potential GOP nominees
2. Hillary has multiple scandals brewing against her that could explode at any minute
3. She has very little excitement or grass roots support.
Voting for Sanders is not even in the same hemisphere as voting for Nader
If I were voting in one of the upcoming primaries, I would probably vote for Bernie, becasue of a strong conviction that he is not going to be the nominee, and wanting part of his platform to be considered and debated in the general election. That is, I do not believe the country is ready for him, but I like the idea of the country moving in the direction of being ready for him or someone like him.
Voting for Sanders is not even in the same hemisphere as voting for Nader
Actually, relative to my point it is very similar. The money now has Hillary more than three times as likely to be nominated than Bernie. And like Nader, Bernie can not win against a mainstream moderate conservative, although in that case Nader was the third candidate and his vote was indeed, even more of a protest vote than voting for Bernie is. But if you think Bernie has a chance of becoming President, you're dreaming far more than the Trumpeters. And I don't believe Trump can be elected either. But it's FAR more likely than Bernie.
Average of Polls has Rubio defeating Hillary by several points, outside the Margin of Error.
But Sanders is only defeated by a single point, which means he could win since it's well inside the Margin of Error.
Sanders beats Trump by a greater margin than Hillary.
Update : Found the Sanders vs. Cruz.
Kasich, Carson and Jeb! need a miracle turnaround to win the GOP nomination at this point.
And like Nader, Bernie can not win against a mainstream moderate conservative
I disagree with you there. What makes you think he couldn't? He polls above them. And he scores high among Independents
Nader had absolutely zero chance.
Sanders vs. Cruz
Sanders wins (and I'd bet $50 it would be well above 3 points. Cruz has gone so far to please Social Conservatives in the Primaries, he can't walk it back and thus can't win nationally).
Hillary vs. Cruz. Wins by 2/10th of one percent, very risky.
Said it before and I'll say it again. Two ways to win: Capture the Center or Enthusiasm. Sanders has the latter. Is Capture the Center a viable strategy at a time when Americans are registering their greatest disgust on record with the status quo and electioneering?
Hillary will be lucky if She beats prison. There are already motions to remove toothless Lynch from Clinton's case due to conflict of interest.
It seems her mornging McDonald's drive through gig is interfering with her job reponsibilities. They are going to promote to general manager and give her two stores.
Because she can't prosecute a traitor war criminal worth a fuck.
Hillary will be lucky if She beats prison.
That's the other risk with Clinton. If Hillary was some State Department Vice Associate Assistant to the Assistant, she'd be facing multiple counts and would be lucky to plea down to a few years in prison.
The thousands and thousands of insecure privately hosted emails with above Secret Clearance information is simply inexcusable. Some of this stuff by law could not have been disseminated out of a Special Locked Room where the computers have their USBs deactivated to prevent flash drives being used.
She absolutely hosted them privately to avoid the new laws on government record keeping.
Somebody - maybe Trump - needs to point out that Obama is pretty damned inconsistent for punishing Generals for breaking protocols, while allowing the Secretary of State herself to violate not only the Law, but State Department Policy secrecy protocols on a massive scale.
A "Leader" who routinely circumvents his own Policies thousands of times is a bad Leader. It's even worse when she's called for the heads of whistleblowers.
Apparently, in the FBI Agents are absolutely LIVID she is not facing charges over this. There's already more than enough information and evidence to begin the prosecution.
Somebody - maybe Trump - needs to point out that Obama
He hasn't gotten to the Liberals yet he's going to do a number on them like you wont believe.
Even if he has to run as an independent. Wouldn't that be something if the RNC machine manages to make it look like Jeb won. Then Trump goes rouge and goes it in an Independent bid.
The polls show him strog enough that the primetime debates have to include him. First of all, it would be the first independent inclusion, they pretty much muscled Nader out of the Presidential debates.
It would be the first time in History that the winning Republican candidate from the primaries got to debate the Republican candidate winner beyond the primaries.
Unlike many Clinton supporters, I am not writing to you because I think you’re naïve, or misguided, or sexist, or dumb, or any of the other patronizing and condescending crap that Hillary voters often say. In fact, I probably agree with you on most issues. I am writing to you because I am sincerely worried that you will hand this election to the Republicans, and I want to do my best to convince you not to do so.
The point of primary elections is not to select a president; it’s to select a candidate. For that reason, “electability†is not just one among many issues: It is the central issue. Yet despite having absorbed several dozen pro-Bernie articles and videos, I have yet to hear a plausible path to victory for Bernie Sanders.
... other than the fact Bernie does as good or better than Hillary against every single Republican in Match-ups - see post above.
Hilarite Reactionaries keep pounding on the "electable" non-issue. Not a single poll I have seen supports this view. While many disagree with Sanders, they do feel that A) He is Honest and B) He has far higher Trust and Honesty ratings than Hillary. The Hilarite Reactionaries don't appreciate how deeply unpopular Hillary is with many across the spectrum, and that she is not a motivating candidate that brings out millions of voters in swing states that might very well stay home.
They're also dismissing the fact, not opinion, that Bernie is raising more money than Hillary and doing so without relying on SuperPACs. This is a leading sign of enthusiasm, particularly as most donations average about $27.
Finally, there are signs that Bernie will beat or match Hillary among Hispanics, who are more numerous than Blacks
Hillary was a victim:
- Of her husbands dating while married issues
- Of her husbands legacy of CRA
- Of her husbands legacy of NAFTA
She was not the bad person - but she likely accepted it as a power couple for her future aspirations.
Hillary extends concerns in that:
- She was silent on Bills bad behavior
- She did a report on Saul Alinsky that shows lack of integrity, and worse a propensity for evil
- Clinton Foundation is looking like the largest influence buying lobbying vehicle by any non-profit
- Clinton Foundation and propensity to undermine US national interests cannot be overstated
- Sending Top Secret emails is illegal, and someone doing this cannot be trusted to safeguard the US
All of this said, Bernie Sanders is more like Saul Alinski that Hillary.
Hillary looks like Mother Theresa compared to Sanders.
She and the American People are being Alinskied
All of this said, Bernie Sanders is more like Saul Alinski that Hillary.
Hillary did not agree with Alinsky and turned down a job offer from him. She believed, unlike Alinsky,that change could come from inside the Establishment without any pressure from the public.
Ha!
It appears that the effects of Alinsky, and the admiration both by Obama and Hillary have crunched the US economy.
Alinskies writings are similar to the writings of V. Lenin.
Alinsky is like the shyster at the used car lot trying to sell you a lemon, but he managed to get his ideas elevated to the power hungry grab power at cost Liberal Democrats.
But Bernie is a better liar than either Obama and Hillary. Lenin was a consumate liar, and he shaped the most idealist false impressions of socialism, that it would be a utopia. Luckily we have Russia, Venezuala, and Cuba as examples of Socialism gone bad, but people accepting free stuff can be lead down a path of destruction.
Atheists - you better look how the devil runs countries, its enough to make you at first agnostics, and then appreciate that liberty is better than enslavement.
1917-2017 is the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. This is darkness. 1917 is also the year that Einsteins PhotoElectric and Relativity theorys were published. This is the light (pun intended).
The question is, which future will we chose?
he substantially raised taxes on the rich
Not really. He raised taxes a little bit.
dramatically expanded the social safety net
At a great cost to middle class. The root causes of unaffordable healthcare prices have not been addressed.
significantly tightened financial regulation
Dodd Frank is weak. Instead of banks holding "inventory" of junk bonds, mutual funds took their place.
encouraged and oversaw a surge in renewable energy
Full credit there.
moved forward on diplomacy with Iran
Credit there. What about screwing up Lybia, Syria, Ukraine?
As for how stupid it is ?
I don't know, I think the people that voted for Nader in 2000, causing Bush to be elected were stupid, for essentially following your reasoning.
If everyone assumes Hillary is a better candidate and vote for her as a result, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the result is to perpetuate the establishment lock on this country
Which is why I said it is stupid, and people should just vote for who they think is the best for the country, and ignore the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt generated by this same establishment.
I understood why you said it's stupid. But you're wrong. It's not that simple. Part of the goal of a primary is to find a candidate that can beat the other side in the fall.
I'm not saying even that they are right if they think this way. But they certainly aren't stupid, and they might be right.
I guess it depends in part in how bad you think having a Trump or a Cruz Presidency would be. Some of us think it would be quite a bit worse than a Hillary Presidency.
It's kind of a moot point anyway, because Bernie isn't going to win, which is why I would be willing to vote for him if I voted in one of the upcoming primaries.
I know. It's twisted.
If everyone assumes Hillary is a better candidate and vote for her as a result, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the result is to perpetuate the establishment lock on this country
The sad thing is that according to most polls Bernie is as good, or the better, candidate in most of the matchups against Republicans than Hillary, but the Media pretends he's a long shot.
The sad thing is that according to most polls Bernie is as good, or the better, candidate in most of the matchups against Republicans than Hillary, but the Media pretends he's a long shot.
A lot of people assume Bernie would fare worse in a general election because he's farther left.
That's underestimating how hated Hillary really is. People are super energized against her.
Comments 1 - 40 of 54 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yep.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/opinion/how-america-was-lost.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs