Clinton vs. Sanders

[Mr. Plumbean]

Just thought I'd drop a thread here since the Trump thread is going off the rails.

I'm voting for HRC in the primary to piss off every Sanders supporter except Jackie.

Seriously, I blogged about it more here.

[Jaglavak]

I'm voting for Sanders under my policy of "Anybody but Hillary except that ass monkey Trump".

[Mr. Plumbean]

That supports Moosie's theory that some Sanders supporters are not drunk on Socialist Kool-Aid.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

That supports Moosie's theory that some Sanders supporters are not drunk on Socialist Kool-Aid.

Using the word "socialism" like a scare tactic is pretty silly. You appear to have more to offer than that.

We enjoy so many things in this country which exist due to the tenets of socialism that you might not expect - police and fire, roads, education up to 12th grade, etc.

Why do we draw the line where we do? Not sure. Ensuring that every citizen who contributes to this society has access to adequate medical care is somehow a taboo thought? Really? We all benefit when the populace is smart and healthy. Why get in the way of spreading that cost around?

I think it's the fact that capitalism at it's purest is so opposed to socialism at it's purest. And people are under the impression that our country is / can be ONLY ONE! (Like the Highlander movies )

People afraid that "others" will come and "steal their money / job / security" is what drives a lot of decisions here. It's sad.

So many discount a candidate simply because of their fear of a word, without understanding what the man would legitimately work towards. He's not going to make us a communist state. Or even a socialist state. Or even resemble a scandinavian country. Lest you people forget there are other people in gov't who oppose that...

The point is this: does the conversation in this country, which is driven by the biggest talking head in the world, the US president, continue down the same path for the next 8 years? Are you happy on that path? Do you have reason to believe that Clinton will encourage us down another path? Do you have reason to believe that Sanders will? What about that smacked-ass Trump? Or Cruz? At the very least force the discussion to be had in a new way...a Trump-led discussion sure would be a sight to see, eh?

The president isn't going to do anything but force a discussion to be had. That's not so bad. It's not a kingship or an emperor. He's just the guy who forces certain conversations be had. And that's not so bad I think...we still have the right to say no after the conversation. Don't forget about the power of your local representatives. Yes he can make some executive decisions - but it's akin to sticking an oar off the side of a sailboat. There's not much he's going to do against the prevailing winds.

Vote for the person you think is most likely to encourage discussion in the manner you believe in. Nobody can make you change your beliefs. Stop defending them so vehemently. But don't make a decision based solely on specific words or phrases that inspire an emotional reaction in you, good or bad. That's a sign of trouble...

If you hear something about a candidate and it upsets you, investigate it. Find out for yourself. Decide if the truth behind that scary word or those pie-in-the-sky ambitions are actually worth running from, or towards. Decide if it's a discussion we should be having, or not. That's all your vote is. A hand raised to say "I want to talk about this".

[SmartAleq]

I like Robert Reich's take on the difference between the two:

“I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have,” Reich said. “But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.”

That pretty well sums it up. Sanders is not proposing anything radical for any first world country OTHER than the USA as it currently stands. Single payer health care. A minimum wage that ensures nobody who works forty hours a week is in poverty. A social safety net that protects the most vulnerable of our citizens. Taxing the rich and the corporations at a level that's actually reasonable (does it seem right to you that GE posted record profits, paid no taxes and actually got billions in refunds past couple years?) Sensible and uniformly enforced regulations on shadow banking and dodgy financial practices to protect our economy from bubbles and boom/bust cycles. Toughening of EPA standards to make sure our water and air and food are clean. Criminal justice reform that makes sure no governor who poisons his city receives less jail time than a kid caught with weed. Ending the War on Some Drugs that has resulted in the USA having the largest incarcerated population in the world--and that ain't per capita, either. Cleaning up our electoral system so it's no longer feasible to purchase representatives outright. A robust educational system that turns out well qualified people to handle the jobs we need, without saddling every college graduate with crippling debt. Breaking the stranglehold the military industrial complex has on our spending, which leads to too many fun war toys that encourage the powerful to go use them on, well, everybody. Investing heavily in our infrastructure. Expanding sources of renewable, clean energy. Keeping oil in the ground, where it belongs. Reducing global warming and carbon emissions.

Whereas I, and pretty much every sensible Bernie supporter, am perfectly aware that he can't get all this done, we think it's valuable to HAVE THE CONVERSATION. To stop throwing up our hands, giving up and saying "well, can't fight city hall!" as our livelihoods are shipped to China and we drink fracking chemicals laced with lead while our militarized police forces use machine guns on college protesters. I simply do not get why anyone with a shred of passion and fight left in them wouldn't go for Bernie, because he's the chance to make a difference. Hillary is just more of the same--says she and Bill left the White House "broke" and now they're worth hundreds of millions. You don't get that rich by helping regular people, you get that rich by pandering to the corporate interests and putting yourself in their pockets.

If Hillary wins the primary, I'll hold my nose and vote for her but in the meantime I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure I don't have to, once again, choose the lesser of the two evils. I wanna vote for the good guy!

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

does it seem right to you that GE posted record profits, paid no taxes and actually got billions in refunds past couple years?

This by itself is not necessarily bad as long as the profit is re-invested in the business. The problem is more directly addressed by busting corporate tax dodges like off-shoring of profits. I would also like to see a federal law restricting any local government from granting a special tax rate to any business. Put an end to the racket of playing lowest common denominator for ridiculous tax breaks.

The rest of the corporate profits go to bond and share holders where it gets clipped by income tax. So that angle should be more directly addressed by reviewing progressive tax rates and stomping out tax breaks.

[SmartAleq]

And our tax code is simply riddled with exemptions and exceptions targeted specifically to help individual corporations. This is why allowing corporations to write the tax and regulatory laws governing their industries is a Bad Idea^TM.

It seems simple to me--if you want access to our economy and our buying power you need to purchase that access via taxes and jobs, and you need to do it in such a way that you don't fuck shit up for everyone. I don't CARE if it cuts into your profits to comply with safety regulations and environmental protections, if your company is going under from the cost of adhering to regulations then your company is not competitive and needs to go to another country where it's more suited. Somalia, perhaps. Another, better run, company will take its place--a company that has already figured the costs of compliance into its business plan. I get really pissed at these companies that will spend millions bribing congresscritters and running "no, it's not OUR fault" ads and the like when simply cleaning up their shit would have cost less to start out with. Because when their shit cuts loose and they poison thousands of people they whine about how it's going to "ruin them" to clean up their mess--that should never have happened in the first place! I think a few good federal convictions of formerly unjailable CEOs would help stem this tide bigtime. Right now they think they're all "too big to fail, too big to jail" but I'd sure like to disprove that empirically and emphatically.

[SmartAleq]

^^^Heartily concur! Stifling discussion because it might go somewhere you don't like is a shitty tactic. It leads to stifling voting because the "wrong people" might vote the "wrong way." I get out and register voters and I don't give a shit if they're Democrats or Republicans or Greens or weird libertarians--I encourage everyone to get the fuck out there and VOTE. Will mistakes be made? Sure. Will we go down unproductive or damaging paths? You betcha. But the thing is, the more we learn again how to be ACTIVE in our governance of our country the better we get at fixing mistakes and shaping our course and compromising with others who don't agree with us. We need the entire voting populace to be active and engaged and out there hollering their messages because otherwise the only voices that get heard are the ones that come attached to big wads of cash. Money is not speech, and speech should be the determining factor in how we steer the country. We need to break the "he who gots the most cash wins" trope because it's going to kill us as a country if we don't. I think Sanders is the one more likely to actively work to bust that trope all to flinders.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Well, I guess I can see how you read that as a legitimate grievance and not a winky kind of joke, at least if you didn't read the thing I linked to where I talked about my former support for Senator Wellstone.

Where the stifling discussion accusation comes from, I dunno. I started the thread didn't I?

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Well, I guess I can see how you read that as a legitimate grievance and not a winky kind of joke, at least if you didn't read the thing I linked to where I talked about my former support for Senator Wellstone.

Where the stifling discussion accusation comes from, I dunno. I started the thread didn't I?

No accusations, just observations. Perhaps i was unconsciously. ..or consciously ... using my reply to you as a wider reply to many others. ..forgetting that the readership of this forum is rather limited. ..

Sorry for any perceived slight. It was not my intention.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

National Lampoon once had a contest:

"I will never smoke marijuana because..."

The winning answer:

"I will never smoke marijuana because I knew a guy who smoked marijuana and he was a real asshole."

Your rationale sounds a bit similar.

I think that you may be misinterpreting Sanders' supporters' "smugness"* for something else. There is a lot of frustration in Democrats who feel that the DNC and numerous vested interests were handing us the heir apparent without accepting a word of dissent. And it was especially frustrating when listening to NPR that Trump was getting so much media coverage for his challenging the status quo, but almost writing off Sanders as a novelty or a gadfly. And it wasn't until his hairsplitting loss in Iowa that anyone in media has been giving thought to taking him seriously. I think what you are hearing is a chorus of "We told you so" which is also a bit irritating, I admit, but for a number of people it is liberating to finally be taken seriously.

This is going to be anecdotal, but I want to protect the anonymity of the source because of where he works (not that anyone there is likely to read here, but still). He is in D.C., working in government circles and knows all the Senators and most of the Representatives by name. He converses with many of them in the course of his work, including Sanders. He says that Sanders is exactly how he comes off, a grumpy old Jew with solid gold integrity. He was actually amazed last summer that I even knew who Sanders was, let alone inclined to vote for him. He's young enough to be my son and assumed (I think) that someone my age would vote for Clinton. All the young people he works with feel the same about Sanders but assumed that their candidate would be crushed under the wheels of the DNC. It wasn't for lack of trying. Debra Wasserman Shultz has a hard on for HRC, and was doing all she could to steer the nomination in her direction. For example, when Sanders heard a debate was on a Saturday night, Sanders asked if it was because Christmas was already taken.

When I asked my friend about opinions of HRC, he confirmed everything that I feared, that she was willing to abandon any ethics she had left to get the nomination. No matter what she had to say or do, she would turn chameleon in pursuit of her goal. He has no respect at all for ethics or integrity. I can deal with someone not being likable, but ethics are too closely linked to where governing can go terribly wrong.

You write in your blog about Liz Warren, and people paying lip service to voting for her. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that - I think that she is just great, and if she were to run in eight years I would pull that lever in a heartbeat.

Rather than repost, I'll just link to what I said about the Democratic race before. I think the chance of losing a SCOTUS nomination or someone overruling Obama's executive orders makes me worry about losing the White House to a Republican.

*Is it correct to have two possessives like that? It makes sense but looks wrong somehow.

[AuntiePam]

I don't follow politics like you guys do, digging deep into issues, etc.

I have two problems with Hillary. The biggest is that I think she's running because she just wants to be President, and especially the first woman President. I suppose that can be said about most candidates throughout history, but there have been a few who entered politics because they wanted to serve the public. I don't get that impression with HRC. All I see is ambition, not real accomplishment, and especially not accomplishment in difficult areas.

My other problem is what Nonny said -- the machine has been behind her since at least 2008 instead of considering other options.

I think she has too much baggage -- her husband was impeached (not her fault but it's not something to brag about), she didn't work well with others as First Lady with her health care bill, she carpetbagged to NYC to the senate, she didn't think the rules applied to her about her emails, she voted for the Iraq war, she complained about being "broke" after leaving the White House, etc. etc.

She comes off as just another establishment politician, and the country's in too big a mess to keep electing these people.

[SmartAleq]

I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for Hillary because "it's time to elect a woman." It's been way past time to elect a woman for like fifty years but hey, I'm used to it by now. My distaste for Hillary has evolved quite organically from her shitty election tactics we all saw on great display against Obama, and from her intense lack of any sort of likeability, and I'm just not happy about the fact that she puts herself into company I don't think is good for the country. Hey, she wants to take millions from Goldman-Sachs for "speaking fees?" Fine, but don't try to make out that it won't cause a conflict of interest when it comes time to prosecute the holy fuck outta Wall Street for financial chicanery. She's repeatedly stated that cuts to Social Security are "on the table" and that's an absolute no-go for me. She's way more war hawkish than I approve of, and that's a direct threat to the health and wellbeing of my grandkids. She's wishy washy and flip floppy--she stabs her finger and declares that single payer is never gonna happen then a week later it's "oh, no, I didn't really mean NEVER of course!" So why say it? I just think she's kinda mean and willing to get down in the shit and pig wrestle to get elected and I think that lacks a whole lot of dignity. Obama may not have been everything I hoped for, but he's been consistently kind, measured, clean and above the fray--and if he can do it, so can she, but she seems to want to take shortcuts and use dirty tricks and misleading statements instead of engaging honestly. I just don't trust her, and I don't CARE if she has a vag, she's not my candidate.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

She's repeatedly stated that cuts to Social Security are "on the table" and that's an absolute no-go for me.

If you do the math it becomes obvious that cuts to Social Security have to be on the table before too much longer.

[BJMoose]

I think I'm gonna let Smarty do all my talking for me from now on. Those are some damn excellent posts.

As I read her list of things that Sanders supports, I couldn't help but think, "Hell, Harry Truman would have gotten behind nearly all of that." Sanders is a super-Socialist? Nah. It just looks that way because the Democratic Party has drifted so far from what it was a generation or two ago. And that is one of the problems with Clinton. Sure, she supports some of that stuff, but her frisky fondness for Wall Street means she will not address the fundamental problem today, which is a society gamed to favor a favored few.

[SmartAleq]

No, that's a complete fallacy. A cursory search will turn up no end of completely reliable sources, all of whom agree that SS is in zero trouble and any possible future shortfall issues can be easily remedied by simply raising the income cap--because it's fucking ludicrous to only pay into SS up to $120K. Raising the income cap is sensible and popular, especially considering the reason for why the cap is at its current level:

Originally Posted by Robert Reich

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission's fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income. Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income. It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent. If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

Again, the biggest problem is this enmired thinking that everything must stay as it is because nothing can be done--this endemic societal helplessness. We have a gigantic economy and a sovereign currency--the only actual impediment to doing what we want is not financial, except insofar as those with all the money don't want any of it diverting out of their pockets. Which, quite frankly, I couldn't possibly care less about. Why should I worry about their existential angst and preoccupation with "fairness" of a steeply progressive taxation rate when 20% of the kids in this country are living in poverty and are going actively hungry? I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way, and that's why Bernie is catching on and making inroads into every voter demographic.

[Wolf Larsen]

I'll be voting for Hilary in our primary. (I've been a registered democrat for many decades.) She has great experience with foreign affairs, which is something the Bernie is lacking in.

[JackieLikesVariety]

If you do the math it becomes obvious that cuts to Social Security have to be on the table before too much longer.

Bernie says to strengthen and expand Social Security and I agree with him

[eleanorigby]

Seems to me that "the Dems" have fallen in love with Bernie (but the GOP hasn't fallen in line with anyone as of yet).

One thing I am not in love with is the righteousness I feel coming from Bernie supporters (not here--in RL). I truly don't understand how they are blind to the rest of the country: there are millions of voters out there for whom socialism in any form is anathema. Bernie may want to start a revolution, but there are quite a few people who don't want a revolution, and there are just as many who do indeed want a revolution, but not the kind that Bernie has in mind. That said, I admire Bernie. I'd like him as VP. And I think he serves the campaign well by forcing an at-least 3 way conversation between B, HRC and the GOP (eventually).

Bottom line: I don't think he's electable. Yes, he led HRC by 70 points in Iowa, among youth (17-29 year olds), but they are NOT reliable voters.

I don't see HRC in the same shifty, suspicious light as some here. I can't imagine anyone voting for her solely because she's female (which shows that we ARE evolving in this country, finally).
She's hardly responsible for her husband's impeachment, and I seriously doubt she's in the race merely to tick off the "first female president" box. I think she truly cares about this country (as does Bernie--they do share this; UNLIKE the GOP crowd who profess great patriotism and yet do all they can to deconstruct its basic tenets). I think she'd do a good job as President. Politics IS rolling in the shit; cynical, but true. I fear people voting for Bernie and us losing the WH AND the Supreme Court. I won't risk 4 years of Cruz or Rubio to "have a conversation". We won't even be at the table if the GOP gets in. I will vote for either Dem candidate, but if it's Bernie, I will prepare myself for 4-8 years of misery.

Neither Bernie or Hillary are going to do anything at all if we don't get some more Dem representation in Congress. And I am concerned that the GOP is so rabidly anti-HRC that, if she's elected, their reaction will make all of their intransigence with Obama look like a kumbaya-fest.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

One thing I am not in love with is the righteousness I feel coming from Bernie supporters (not here--in RL). I truly don't understand how they are blind to the rest of the country: there are millions of voters out there for whom socialism in any form is anathema.

I don't think Sanders supporters are blind to the rest of the country. We've seen the knee-jerk reactions. What some of us hope to do is continue to be ourselves -- reasonable, responsible, thoughtful people who will support Bernie and show by example that nobody's advocating a violent overthrow of the government. A sneaky revolution, if you will.

There's a Bernie sign in my window. People will walk by and think "What? We have a lot in common. She's no revolutionary. Maybe Bernie's worth a look."

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

I'll be voting for Hilary in our primary. (I've been a registered democrat for many decades.) She has great experience with foreign affairs, which is something the Bernie is lacking in.

FTFY

Simply having done something for a while doesn't mean you're any good at it. Communicating her foreign affairs stuff over non-secure personal email servers? The whole Benghazi kerfuffel? If she's so great with foreign affairs then she should have stayed as secretary of state.

Anyway, the whole direction of this thread seems to be focusing on the inability to enact the sweeping changes Bernie is campaigning upon.

Who cares if they can get done right away, or at all? The question is this - do you believe that's the direction we should move in? Hillary sure as hell isn't going to move towards those things.

Besides, she's got million$ of favor$ to pay back to the current political and financial establishment. What will the repayment of those favors cost our country? What rationalization is used for these items when deciding she's the best choice? Shrug your shoulders and say "That's just how it is"? I'm genuinely interested in an answer to this.

I for one don't want it to be that way anymore, and there's only one candidate who is advocating quite explicitly and sincerely against it.

Hell I don't care if a single one of Bernie's ideas got implemented. I just want to see the conversation be had on a national stage, for at least 4 years. Campaign finance reform, single payer healthcare, more support for our veterans, and less support for middle eastern wars.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Bernie says a lot of things except where the trillions of dollars are going to come from to pay for everything. And how he's going to get a Republican congress to pass his laws. And why the big banks he wants to break up will just go meekly away because that's what rich powerful people always do.

It doesn't matter if it HAPPENS. What matters is that we DEMANDED it.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Bernie says a lot of things except where the trillions of dollars are going to come from to pay for everything. And how he's going to get a Republican congress to pass his laws. And why the big banks he wants to break up will just go meekly away because that's what rich powerful people always do.

It doesn't matter if it HAPPENS. What matters is that we DEMANDED it.

You aren't paying attention then, because, as an experienced Senator, Bernie is completely aware that he needs to back up his projects with a means to pay for them. How to pay for it is an integral part of his platform.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Thanks Rigs. Was feeling kinda lonely.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Thanks Rigs. Was feeling kinda lonely.

I get it. I was listening to Norman Goldman on the way home from work yesterday (usually hate talk radio, but couldn't take another minute of NPR's All Things Considered. I hate how it repeats--I KNOW it's a "feature", but it's annoying!), and he's got "lots" (several yesterday, anyway) who were riding him about being anti-Bernie.

I just don't get this. First of all, since when have Dems agreed in one voice? We "fall in love"; Reps "fall in line". So, to that. Second, pointing out electability and Iowa caucus numbers (favor HRC) is NOT a criticism or a "dissing" of Bernie. We have to be respectful of ALL Dems, and most important, we have to vote Democratic, if we are to hold onto to the progress we've made. I really don't think Hillary takes anyone's vote for granted. I think that's a meme that plays right into the GOP's hands.

I think (this is my part of the conversation) that a sea change of sorts is starting in this country: for example, gay marriage is essentially a done deal (doesn't make homophobia go away, of course), but I do think (another example), now that we have even GOP candidates talking about the need to serve the poor (yes, because they pushed them into poverty! but I digress), that the pendulum is starting back from neo-conservative crazy town.

This is a good thing, and long overdue, but I don't think the goalposts should suddenly be shoved into Bernie territory (mixing metaphors). Americans will (eventually) do the right thing, but NOT if they suspect too much change is coming too fast (why do you think we had this backlash in the first place? It started with Reagan; it's been going on since 1980! in reaction to all the massive changes--political, culture and social--in the 60s and 70s)

And it's not just the Feds we need to concern ourselves with. We need Democratic governors, with state legislators who will stand up and NOT let the GOP privatize stuff like oh, Flint's water supply or public education, defunding the NIH etc. The GOP has been "starving the beast" for decades (except for when they created the biggest increase in Fed Gment EVER, but never mind) and it's showing. Our infrastructure is for shit--think of the jobs that could be had if we really put America back to work, and maybe didn't close down VA facilities and mental hospitals etc. I think both HRC and BS want to invest in America and Americans.

So, yes, I suppose I could see Bernie as President, IF we get Dem governors, Dem senators, and Dem US Congresscritters, and frankly, I don't see that sort of sweep happening. Only then could he get his ambitious agenda off the ground.

Seriously, folks, I can't take 4-8 more years of trickle-down, love Jesus, hate women, hate gays, kill the planet for profit shit. W about killed me. I'd like to pass on some hope to my kids and possible grandkids, 8 years from now...So, no matter what, vote Dem!

[Mr. Plumbean]

Even if he does all those things (which he can't do) there's trillions of dollars between what he wants to do and how he plans to pay for it.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Even if he does all those things (which he can't do) there's trillions of dollars between what he wants to do and how he plans to pay for it.

Did you get down to the bottom of the page with the handy graphic on expected revenue on one side and cost on the other? Because every item either balances or costs less than the revenue source.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Whatever happened the JFK side of the Democratic party that emphasized doing-for instead of asking-for? Sanders is kind of Trumpish in his appeal to people to be mad and demand things and make other people pay for it.

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Whatever happened the JFK side of the Democratic party that emphasized doing-for instead of asking-for? Sanders is kind of Trumpish in his appeal to people to be mad and demand things and make other people pay for it.

I'm sorry, but what "other people" would those be? Of the people, by the people, for the people. We all pay in, we all benefit. Do you prefer the current system, where the lowest earners pay proportionally more of their income in taxes than the highest ones? Because that's a crappy system unless you're one of those very few gilded recipients.

Have you ever noticed that there's a shit ton of work that needs to be done but no jobs available to get it done? That's because it's work that does not feed the coffers of the already wealthy. In a healthy society, we would look at "money" as an expression of "units of labor" and hook up those with labor units to spare (jobless) with projects that need labor to fix. Great example is that we SAY raising children is a super important thing but we don't pay SAHP. We expect that parents will go get outside work, then pay a disproportionate percentage of their income from those jobs to pay for day care--in this model they still end up working for, basically, nothing and their kids don't have the benefit of their parents' attention. Why don't we think in terms of hiring SAHP to staff day care centers where they can keep their young kids with them, take care of other parent's kids too and get paid to do something super useful for their society? It's doable, but we never have the conversation so we keep limping along with a dysfunctional system that doesn't really benefit anyone.

We could do worse than implementing a basic income that pays everyone for being a part of society. If you had, say an extra grand or so a month coming in that you KNEW was rock solid and could always be counted on, what could you do? Maybe you'd cut back your hours at work and volunteer instead, or start a small business, or maybe you'd just keep working like mad and bank it for the future. Whatever, but no matter what you'd be gaining a whole lot of freedom. What if everyone had that freedom? What if our standard of living were decoupled from our work, what if our labor became a hotly contested commodity? I think that sounds more enticing than being part of a slave labor pool that will put up with any amount of shit just to HAVE A JOB.

None of these ideas are all that radical, they've been tried out and implemented in lots of other places, this is not impossible. All we really need is the will and the fight.

[Mr. Plumbean]

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/anal...payer-offsets/

[SmartAleq]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/anal...payer-offsets/

Looks like they've had quite the axe to grind for quite some time, and some fairly questionable associations.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Several people on Facebook upset that HRC mentioned Wellstone, one guy claiming it moved him off the fence. What the actual fuck? Wellstone's ghost gave you exclusive right to decide which of his former political allies can name-drop him?

[loshan]

Although I get the Bernie love and I appreciate how he is pulling the entire conversation to the left, I will happily vote for Hillary if only for veto power and SCOTUS as opposed to a Republican sweep.

That puts me firmly in the Plumbean/Rigs camp.

The primary pie fight always puts me off politics. I suppose it is because fighting with the asshole neighbors down the street is one thing, fighting with family is different, and worse.

Washington is a caucus state (primary on the Dem side is just for show) so I'll worry about who I'll be strategically caucusing for closer to mid-March.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by loshan

Although I get the Bernie love and I appreciate how he is pulling the entire conversation to the left, I will happily vote for Hillary if only for veto power and SCOTUS as opposed to a Republican sweep.

That puts me firmly in the Plumbean/Rigs camp.

The primary pie fight always puts me off politics. I suppose it is because fighting with the asshole neighbors down the street is one thing, fighting with family is different, and worse.

Washington is a caucus state (primary on the Dem side is just for show) so I'll worry about who I'll be strategically caucusing for closer to mid-March.

This, a thousand-fold. I loathe primary season for this very reason. It's one thing to watch the political theater taking place in the now not-so-cramped clown car of the GOP. It's quite another to watch reasonable people destroy the oh so very fragile veneer of decency and civilization we have left. Hate in-fighting and I really hate that HRC is held to a double standard when it happens. I can dismiss the GOP HRC hate easily, but to see the latent sexism on the more progressive side come to the fore is truly disheartening. If any male campaigning said the things she does, he'd be called strong or ruthless-in positive tones; she does it and she's called conniving or bitchy or "ambitious". WTH? ANYONE running for Pres is ambitious by definition! Why is that a pejorative when applied to women only?

AuntiePam: Maybe. And maybe they see that Bernie sign and think that their GOP candidate has a better chance. I have yet to meet a modern conservative who does not hold contempt for the idealism of liberals. It's still very much a dirty word to them and a socialist is on par with a communist. But most conservatives will still be very polite and friendly to you (until you--general you-- go online or to a candidate rally--that seems to bring out their nasty side). So, chances are, you'll never know what your neighbors think about you or your choice (if your community is anything like mine).

The type of changes Smarty is referring to... are not going to happen in this country. We're too big, too heterogeneous, and too entrenched in our independent/ pioneer culture. On a more personal note, I was not a SAHM to take care of other people's children! I was one to do my absolute best by my own kids and to volunteer and give back to my community while I had time. I was fortunate (for a brief while) to be financially secure enough to live the life my mother and her friends wanted so badly to escape from. That's an entire other thread, but the very idea of a national collective daycare gives me the heebeejeebees. I don't even like the daycare sponsored at work (it lasted about a year). It's a lovely idea on paper. In some places it could be quite viable, but as a national approach to young working families, I'm leery. It's one of the many ideas that sound wonderful, but once you drill down, it gets dicey quickly. I firmly back young families having access to superior daycare of their choice.

Never mind the remote chance of getting funding, or even the bills necessary to get this kind of legislation passed, the massive cultural shift that would have to occur is unlikely, given the current distrust of Gment in general and the Right's loathing of liberals et al. We sometimes accuse the GOP of living in a bubble of entitlement. Sometimes I think we liberals live in a bubble of idealism.

Take this example:yes, it'd be lovely if every school in the country had an organic garden and that produce was used to make the school lunches (a meme going round FB right now, at least for me)... but that presupposes the political and human will to achieve that; the cost of water, soil, labor (done by the children in Gardening Class, apparently), maintenance etc. It also does not take into account that not all crops grow on a school time line or in the varied geographic regions. And then there is crop failure, insect infestation etc.
By all means, let each school have a garden--especially in urban schools so kids can learn where their food comes from and that nature is not "other", but the rest of it is very pie in the sky. And it may not lead to the results that are expected.

My point is that we don't get a "do-over". There is no clean slate to be had. We have to work within the parameters of the real and the true, not what we wish for. I wish, for another example, "Detroit" would stop making gasoline-powered cars, full stop, but again, it's not going to happen in my lifetime...

[piepiepie]

The way certain Sanders supporters handled the BLM protesters' interruption last summer made me cautious of his supporters, but I'll happily vote for him. Of course, I'll happily vote for Clinton, too. I'm leaning towards Bernie, but I am not "feeling the Bern" or any of that dumb shit.

I'm not as into this political discussion (overall) as I feel I should be. I took that isidewith quiz, and I matched Sanders more than anyone else (but barely more than HRC). I made the mistake of making a politics joke at this dinner my family had with our old neighbors last week. They're old, white, conservative Trump supporters. Because he's a "businessman". That scares me. I don't live in Baltimore but there's a Democrat running for mayor as a "businessman" and for the life of me I don't know why people think that's such a good thing. (I don't think he'll get elected though.)

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by piepiepie

. . . I don't live in Baltimore but there's a Democrat running for mayor as a "businessman" and for the life of me I don't know why people think that's such a good thing. . . .

It's because, for a couple of centuries, they have insisted that They Know Best what is good for this country, that they are More Important to society than anyone else, and people buy that bullshit. That's one point in Bernie's favor. So far as I know he is not in any businessman's hip pocket. The same can not be said of Hillary (nor Bill - NAFTA, anyone?).

[Khampelf]

I'll vote for Sanders in the AZ primary and hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I have to.

[Nonny J. Nonnington III]

Originally Posted by Khampelf

I'll vote for Sanders in the AZ primary and hold my nose and vote for Hillary if I have to.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well. I'd like to see Sanders elected, but I don't know that it will happen. It won't stop me from voting for him in the primary, though. Unfortunately, since the day I registered to vote I have had to listen to people who would rather be on the winning side than vote for someone who better represents their own values, so there will be a lot of people who vote for HRC in the primaries because they think she will win.

Some other reasons to vote for Sanders:

When HRC thought herself the Democratic candidate, she seemed to be happy to drift farther and farther to the right if she thought it made her electable to independents. Since Sanders gave her credible opposition, she has suddenly started to promote her "progressive" values. The more votes for Sanders, the more she will stake out positions on the left, and she'll have to make good on some of them if she wants reelection in 2020.

And right now, many young Democrats consider Sanders to be "their" candidate. If they see the nomination go to HRC without at least some opposition this could well cause them to feel that, along with crippling student loans and a terrible labor market, their votes don't mean anything and their voices are ignored. What would that mean? Boycotting Presidential elections, potentially handing the Presidency to Republicans? Boycotting interim elections, giving Congress to the Republicans?

Or maybe worse.

In some ways, I am getting a sense of youth anger that led to the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968. That's the event that partly led to states adopting primary elections, for gawdsakes. Prior to that party bosses would select the nominee, and that seems an awful lot like DNC trying to do until people starting to hold their feet to the fire. I don't see the organization in place (yet) for something like that to take place (think Occupy Wall Street's lack of a clear message). But with social media these days it is a lot easier to get the message out, and I see a lot of energy and a lot of motivation and a lot of idealism in young people that could be put behind a movement. And if that leads to a third party, that would in turn hand everything to the Republicans.

I dunno, it seems that young people should have a voice in voting for someone that will set policies for a country that they will be growing older in, and I am happy to help them do it.

[Mr. Plumbean]

It's interesting how much the Sanders supporter has assumed the right wing attacks on Hillary into his personal political mythology.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

It's interesting how much the Sanders supporter has assumed the right wing attacks on Hillary into his personal political mythology.

Wanna expound upon that, or are you sniping?

[Mr. Plumbean]

I don't think I need to expound on it. You're using Rush Limbaugh talking points. Sniping, whatever. I consider it to be criticism.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

I don't think I need to expound on it. You're using Rush Limbaugh talking points. Sniping, whatever. I consider it to be criticism.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Anyway, seems as though you're looking at what I say and lumping it in with others with whom you have already decided to disagree. Shutting off your ears/eyes to spare your mind the potential cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps you're just tired of hashing the same stuff and you just want what you want and damned be any new evidence regarding it.

Nobody answered my genuine question yet though. How does one rationalize the campaign contributions for Hillary - is it unimportant? Is it possible that she'd have absolutely no interest to repay those who put her where she is?

I'm not a Sanders supporter anymore than I'm a Hillary opposer. I enjoy asking the questions and seeing what shakes out. I'm not a campaign volunteer, and I'm not trying to change any of your minds or belittle your views. If in the process of asking these questions your mind changes, fine. If not, well it wasn't going to anyway so there's no skin off my nuts.

So far, whenever I ask the questions about HRC's political history and her current and former financiers, the issue is dodged. (here and elsewhere) The answers given by her opposition when her supporters refuse to answer make her look awful. Silence can be damning. Yet still I ask, because I want to know both viewpoints.

Whenever I ask the question of Sanders political record and who has (and is) financing him, the answers are immediately apparent and in line with what everyone would expect of a genuine person acting from a sincere position. He believes what he believes and he's always working towards it in the same way. He avoids "owing" anyone anything that would be contrary to his goals. His only debt is to the people who agree with him.

I'd rather talk about the things Sanders wants to talk about. I don't want to listen to HRC talk about the things she claims are important because when she talks it feels so terribly disingenuous. On top of that, I'd personally be embarrassed to have HRC's history. Honestly I would. I am amazed at her ability to stand up on stage with all that baggage behind her. It's either immense strength, or willfull ignorance.

One thing's for sure - humans have always been plagued by an unwillingness (or inability) to consider the motivations and perspective of the people they stand opposed to. I refuse to accept disagreement from someone who won't engage the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, it is as though you never spoke, and I will continue asking the questions.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

I don't think I need to expound on it. You're using Rush Limbaugh talking points. Sniping, whatever. I consider it to be criticism.

And to me it looks like a cop-out. Sure, the Benghazi thing is crap. But what does it say about her apparent arrogance that she couldn't stoop to use a government e-mail server as she should have and as, so far as we know, everyone else does? What sort of chits do her big-money contributors think they hold? If it doesn't bother you that Wall Street guys are dumping a lot of money in her coffers, fine; say so. But it sure bothers the heck out of some of us.

[loshan]

I also find it interesting that Sanders is characterized as not being part of the "establishment". He has held elected office for 35 years. Fed from the same public trough and wallowed in the same mud as anyone who is a career politician. To say that he somehow lives outside the bubble of DC beggars belief.

[AuntiePam]

On the issue of experience in foreign affairs -- no one candidate will know everything they need to know -- about anything. The key is to listen and to get good people on your staff and in your cabinet -- not just hand out positions to cronies and supporters (especially ambassadorships). I think that's where Obama failed -- he was let down time and time again.

So another Clinton-Sanders issue is which of them will look for the best people and not hand out plum spots to unqualified people.

[silenus]

I'm voting for Hillary for no other reason than she is so feared/hated by the Right that her election will cause any number of them to infarct. Sorry, Mom!

[Detroit Hoser]

Originally Posted by silenus

I'm voting for Hillary for no other reason than she is so feared/hated by the Right that her election will cause any number of them to infarct. Sorry, Mom!

There are several reasons why Hillary is my candidate but that one, by far, is my favorite.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by silenus

I'm voting for Hillary for no other reason than she is so feared/hated by the Right that her election will cause any number of them to infarct. Sorry, Mom!

This isn't in the slightest bit true. She'll keep business working just like normal.

[RealityChuck]

I'd be happy to vote for either, but right now, I'm leaning strongly toward Hillary.

My change (I was leaning toward Sanders until very recently) is that Sanders's supporters keep repeating lies about Hillary. No, she did not win the "six coin flips in a row" in Iowa (That was cherry picked: there were about a dozen delegates chosen that way, and she got six of them). No, she's not being supported by the big banks (small donors who were employees of the banks were grouped by employer).

Her comment about not getting single payer is pure realism -- Sander's has no chance of it happening until someone manages to convince doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurers to go along. Bernie ain't gonna do that unless he sets himself up as a dictator (which he wouldn't do).

She also seems to know more about foreign policy.

What really turned me off was that Sanders' supporters sound like Republicans (or Communists): We have a party line and if you aren't 110% ideologically pure, you're a traitor. I find that sort of attitude stupid and very immature. The very nature of politics in a democracy is that you won't get everything you want.

Much of Hillary's "history," BTW, is just a fabrication of the right wing. It's like thinking she had Vince Foster killed.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

My change (I was leaning toward Sanders until very recently) is that Sanders's supporters keep repeating lies about Hillary. No, she did not win the "six coin flips in a row" in Iowa (That was cherry picked: there were about a dozen delegates chosen that way, and she got six of them).

That sounds like a bunch of people spouting off because they were upset with the unofficial nature of the Iowa caucuses. Also, that's only one single point on which you can say his supporters "lie" about Hillary? It's tenuous at best to say it was calling Hillary a liar and realistically the whole coin flip thing didn't even last one news cycle. Just a bunch of butthurt youngsters who didn't get what they wanted, so they started pointing fingers. Didn't really seem like an outright lie to me.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

No, she's not being supported by the big banks (small donors who were employees of the banks were grouped by employer).

Really? Then why is it listed underneath that "organization" name? It makes no sense...Is that linked website just lying or what, because it's absolutely a misrepresentation to say the money came from those organizations with a disclaimer that it didn't at the bottom in tiny text. What is the purpose of categorizing the donations under those headers?

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Her comment about not getting single payer is pure realism -- Sander's has no chance of it happening until someone manages to convince doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurers to go along. Bernie ain't gonna do that unless he sets himself up as a dictator (which he wouldn't do).

Well, as I've mentioned, you're probably right but I still want to have someone force this conversation to be had for 4 years instead of ignoring it simply because it's hard to accomplish. The further out you hold the carrot, the faster the donkey walks. Big dreams result in slightly less big, but still worthwhile, accomplishments.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

She also seems to know more about foreign policy.

Matter of opinion, I will concede. I hold a different one, but tomato / potato.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

What really turned me off was that Sanders' supporters sound like Republicans (or Communists): We have a party line and if you aren't 110% ideologically pure, you're a traitor. I find that sort of attitude stupid and very immature. The very nature of politics in a democracy is that you won't get everything you want.

I've honestly never heard this but I'm interested to see what is giving you this impression.

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Much of Hillary's "history," BTW, is just a fabrication of the right wing. It's like thinking she had Vince Foster killed.

What is the "history" that seems to be fabricated? I mean it's all public record...what part has been fabricated?