Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 578592 times)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #450 on: February 11, 2016, 06:57:02 AM »
Sometimes I wonder if Clinton has to come across as hawkish on Foreign policy to combat the "women are to wimpy to be president" stereotype.   I am not saying that is a legit reason for her to be hawkish, but I do struggle with how much of her persona is really her beliefs vs. what she needs to project as a female in order to seem "Presidential".



dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #451 on: February 11, 2016, 07:21:35 AM »
The fruits of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience:

Islamic State Foothold in Libya Poses Threat to Europe

RAF Flying Libyan Missions

Can Tunisia's Border Barrier Stop Extremism Entering from Libya?

Islamic State-Linked Fighters Seizing Oil-Rich Land in Libya

Ansar al Sharia claims to have downed jet flying over Derna

Note this last one: those are the guys who attacked the "consulate" in Benghazi and killed Ambassador Stevens. There's good reason to believe they have anti-aircraft capabilities (pictures of the crashed plane were shown). The US government is letting the rebellion in Syria fail because they're unwilling to give the rebels there anti-aircraft missiles for fear of them going to al-Qaeda - but Hillary's war in Libya seems to have already accomplished that!

While I'm sympathetic towards a generally non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm afraid that right now any tough talking Republican would eat Sander's lunch with that platform in the general contest come next fall. Although most people seem to agree the Iraq War was a mistake, paranoia and anxiety regarding ISIS seems to be winning the day and a Democrat will need to come across pretty aggressive with a solid 'protect our nation/take the fight to them' message  to counter the Republican fear mongering and 'waterboard and carpet bomb them' posturing.

Hillary Clinton has as much credibility as Dick Cheney on how to contain extremists.

These are the countries where al-Qaeda, IS, or Iranian-sponsored Shia extremists hold territory:
Iraq
Syria
Libya
Egypt
Saudi Arabia (yes, some Saudi towns are occupied by Yemeni proxies of Iran)
Yemen

Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #452 on: February 11, 2016, 07:36:08 AM »
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.

She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success. So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.

Maybe Libya would be in exactly the same position today if we hadn't bombed it to pieces. Maybe it wouldn't. But you're ignoring the moral importance of what happened - the United States killed people, living, breathing, people with feelings, mothers, and children - and accomplished nothing. Hillary Clinton learned nothing from her vote for the Iraq war.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #453 on: February 11, 2016, 07:51:32 AM »
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.

She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success. So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.

It's all spin one way or the other. Her's is a positive spin, your's is a negative. I happen to think there is some middle ground, particularly when comparing her to everyone else who might end up being President.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #454 on: February 11, 2016, 08:00:30 AM »
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.

She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success. So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.

It's all spin one way or the other. Her's is a positive spin, your's is a negative. I happen to think there is some middle ground, particularly when comparing her to everyone else who might end up being President.

What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #455 on: February 11, 2016, 08:01:40 AM »
While I'm sympathetic towards a generally non-interventionist foreign policy, I'm afraid that right now any tough talking Republican would eat Sander's lunch with that platform in the general contest come next fall. Although most people seem to agree the Iraq War was a mistake, paranoia and anxiety regarding ISIS seems to be winning the day and a Democrat will need to come across pretty aggressive with a solid 'protect our nation/take the fight to them' message  to counter the Republican fear mongering and 'waterboard and carpet bomb them' posturing.

It's an odd thing: Sanders has the best foreign policy, but it's in his best interest as a candidate to avoid talking about it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #456 on: February 11, 2016, 08:02:21 AM »
Well, that is your personal assessment of Clinton's past foreign policy, laying the blame for all those situations at her feet. Given the extreme volatility of that region, I'm find it difficult to argue that the situation would have been drastically better had someone else been Secretary of State. Ultimately it's rather a moot point one way or the other as I maintain the American people are currently fixated on the latest 'existential threat' of ISIS and a tough talking Hillary will be more successful than a non-interventionist Sanders against a likely rabid "take the fight to them" Republican come this next fall. It doesn't matter how much I like Sanders' non-interventionism if enough people won't vote for him.

She takes credit for the intervention in Libya and counts it as a success. So it's not my opinion laying it at her feet, it's her own.

It's all spin one way or the other. Her's is a positive spin, your's is a negative. I happen to think there is some middle ground, particularly when comparing her to everyone else who might end up being President.

What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Past, present or future?

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #457 on: February 11, 2016, 08:08:36 AM »
Honestly, I have been mostly on the fence re Bernie vs. Hillary.  They are such different candidates, and though I agree in so many ways with Bernie about domestic issues, I am not very comfortable with him in terms of foreign policy experience. 

I'm of the opposite opinion. On foreign policy, Bernie >> Hillary. Here's why.

1. Bernie's been on the right side of just about every major foreign policy debate going back to Nicaragua under Reagan. I get the impression that the man honestly evaluates the facts before making hasty decisions, at least that's the impression I get from reading about his time in the Senate, HoR, and as Mayor of Burlington. And that's a quality I want in someone directing foreign policy.

2. Hillary seems to be a continuation of the long tradition of foreign policy thinking that stretches back to WW2. Since the Dulles brothers under Eisenhower, we've had Sec of States, Directors of CIA and various white house advisors, who've recommended vigorous action without doing their homework*. With Hillary's track record as Sec of State, she seems to me to be a military hawk. Her handling of Libya was hasty. From what I have read, she knew what she wanted to do before doing her homework. Right in line with  Kissinger or John Foster Dulles**. I see her as more of the same. To be fair, Iran deal seemed somewhat better thought out, and planned, and may turn out okay, so there is hope there.

Yes, perhaps I'm unfairly ascribing all the transgressions of the past on Hillary. I'm aware of this. But I don't see her as a bastion of clear eyed analytical and logical thinking when it comes to foreign policy. Experienced? Yes. Biased? Yes.

The thing is, lately I've been wondering which candidate will be the most likely to be sure of his/her facts before taking action. It certainly ain't Carly Fiorina. I think she still believes those planned parenthood videos represented reality. But no need to worry about her as she'll be out soon. It ain't Trump. That guy calls it from the gut, which sometimes works out, but often won't. Oh I shudder to think of it. Hillary, well, I think she's in the middle. But Bernie seems better suited to the job. He seems the most willing to evaluate facts before jumping to conclusions.

*These leaders not only failed to combat confirmation bias, but seem to have not comprehended its existence. They formed opinions of who the bad guys were, what should be done, and then cherry-picked data, real or imagined, to support their proposals. And the consequences have been tragic. There's a long list of examples, I'd recommend starting with Iran's Mossedegh 1953, Guatamala's Arbenz 1954, and Chile's Allende, 1973. (but wait, there's MORE! Congo, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, ...).  The common theme in these grave and meddlesome activities, is that our leaders, who we trusted with all that power, didn't appreciate the importance of double checking their facts, seeking out dissenting opinions, or striving to understand reality before approving military action that cost lives. Many lives. Too many lives. These people, highly educated people, authorized, or pushed their presidents to authorize, often illegal, usually covert actions that largely contributed to the shit storms the middle east (and parts of Latin America) are in today.

** The worst offenders I've come across in terms of pursing a strategy without doing their homework: Nixon, George W Bush, Henry Kissinger, William J Casey, the Dulles brothers, all the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, I. Krystall, Doug Feith).

Sorry for the long, footnoted post. Lately I've been obsessing on post-WWII foreign policy of the US, and just about at every turn I am gobsmacked to learn how little homework was done before ordering actions that, in retrospect, have resulted in tragedies of unexpected consequences. I want that shit to stop. IMO, Bernie >> Hillary on this score.

This is a great post. +1.

One of the things that Ron Paul (and more recently his son Rand Paul) have been harping on for years is repeated failure to learn from our foreign policy mistakes. I haven't heard Rand say it yet, but Ron explicitly used the term "blowback", broadly thought of as the law of unintended consequences applied to international politics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence) (explicitly mentions some of the events of M41's post upthread)

History can teach us much, if we care to pay attention, and it's frustrating to see Republican candidates in lockstep with respect to interventionist doctrine that has proven to have bitten us in the ass time and time again. When Ted Cruz talks about "carpet bombing" and "making the sand glow", and the others on the stage refuse to challenge him on this, it makes me very afraid that a Republican president might well fly us blind into yet another armed conflict. Many forget that there's a strong history of being anti-interventionist in the Republican party (Taft?), or they choose to ignore it because it conflicts with their worldview. The rhetorical dick-measuring contest of posturing to appear tough, talking about things like indiscriminately bombing the shit out of people and building walls to keep out Mexicans, lacks the nuance and careful consideration our foreign policy deserves.

I haven't reviewed Sanders' position on all of this, but it sounds from what others have said here like he might be the sane one in the room on this subject.

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #458 on: February 11, 2016, 08:17:39 AM »
If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #459 on: February 11, 2016, 09:31:52 AM »
An article a younger friend posted on FB about how she decided she was going to vote for Hillary:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/09/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-hillary-clinton-president

Worth a read.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #460 on: February 11, 2016, 09:43:14 AM »
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Past, present or future?

The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.

If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.

I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #461 on: February 11, 2016, 10:41:16 AM »
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Past, present or future?

The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.

If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.

I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republican

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #462 on: February 11, 2016, 11:43:34 AM »
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Past, present or future?

The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.

If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.

I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republican
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #463 on: February 11, 2016, 12:10:16 PM »
What is your opinion of the Western intervention in Libya?

Past, present or future?

The one Hillary Clinton was involved in, obviously.

If Hillary were a republican, then i really believe we'd all be calling her a neocon. Like the above poster, i'm more a believer in the ron/rand paul foreign policy.

I knocked on doors for Ron Paul in Iowa in December 2007 for this reason. It's a shame Rand did such a crappy job this year.
I was wishing Rand would of became president, but I don't think he did crappy, I think he was great in debates. It's just hard to get votes with a moderate view. Wanting less military spending is almost political suicide as a republican
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

I think his problem was he never articulated what his foreign policy was. He kept saying we shouldn't interfere with a country unless we have a strategic national interest, but never defined what that was. He signed the iran letter that sen. Tom Cotton wrote, which was constitutionally accurate, but comes across as hawkish. At some point he should have just realized he was not running for president but to push the movement. he can always run next time, he is young.

I know some people noted that he did not get to into ending the fed, going on the gold standard etc. but none of that is really feasible until we get control of our deficit spending, nationally and governmentally.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #464 on: February 11, 2016, 12:28:38 PM »
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #465 on: February 11, 2016, 12:34:43 PM »
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
That is completely false.  It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation.  Nothing else.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #466 on: February 11, 2016, 12:37:04 PM »
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.

Shoulderthing, you are the first person I've ever "met" who agrees with the Citizens United decision. 

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #467 on: February 11, 2016, 12:53:09 PM »
Hillary's Campaign logo is hideous, reminds me of a hospital. Who the hell got paid the big bucks to come up with THAT?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #468 on: February 11, 2016, 12:55:50 PM »
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.

Shoulderthing, you are the first person I've ever "met" who agrees with the Citizens United decision.

Hi there, I'm Beltim.  Now you've met two. 

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
That is completely false.  It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation.  Nothing else.

The whole point of Citizens United is that people do not give up their first amendment rights to speech because of the topic (elections) or because of associations including corporations, but people often forget that the Citizens United decision also allows other associations of people, including unions.

My freedom to air a television ad should not be abridged because I'm not wealthy enough because I can't afford it on my own, and have to pool together with other people to pay for the ad.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8266
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #469 on: February 11, 2016, 12:58:00 PM »
Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton).
That is completely false.  It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation.  Nothing else.

Thank you both for providing me the incentive to read more about the Citizens United decision.  E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC.

1) Citizens United didn't like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 film:
Quote
During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising....

2) The Federal Election Commission told Citizens United to go away:
Quote
In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found...no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act

3) Citizens United decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em":
Quote
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its latest political documentary Hillary: The Movie....

Etc.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #470 on: February 11, 2016, 01:03:57 PM »
Agreed...Rand did fine. The current political and foreign policy climate is really not conducive to a candidate like Rand right now.  The ISIS flare up this year did wonders for Trump's campaign. I consider myself a libertarian that leans right, so all of these political threads have me quite torn since i agree with both sides on various things. I do think Bernie is the only honest candidate in the current field. I shiver at the thought of the economic reprecussions his policies could have. I'm a small government guy...lower taxes, less regulation, end the fed, quit fucking with interest rates and the monetary system, dont go to war with every country that produces a terrorist. To me it is common sense stuff...but we all have our opinions. I honestly have zero idea who I'd vote for right now, but i know i would NOT vote for hillary or trump....so, dear sweet baby jesus dont let trump get the nomination.

Also, Bernie wants to substantially curtail the First Amendment (Citizens United - cut through all the hype and the case was about the government fining a private organization for making a movie about Hillary Clinton). If it weren't for that he might be unambiguously my favorite remaining candidate, though I have serious, serious concerns about all of them.
That is completely false.  It was about restricting political expenditures by a corporation.  Nothing else.

What I wrote was entirely true.

What media should the government be able to ban, and under what circumstances, in your opinion?

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #471 on: February 11, 2016, 09:51:07 PM »
How cool was it that Bernie brought up both Mossadegh and Henry Kissinger in the PBS debate?  Cambodia, etc. Hell yeah. Carpet bombing Cambodia was CRIMINAL.

Google trends during debate

What if the general population came up to speed on all that bullshit post-WW2 foreign policy?  I'd love that. Maybe jingoism will cease to appeal to voters.

Probably will have little effect, but a girl can hope.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 11:52:35 PM by Malaysia41 »

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #472 on: February 12, 2016, 04:58:43 PM »
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.

Is that enough?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #473 on: February 12, 2016, 05:51:47 PM »
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.

Is that enough?
Beautiful.

Given the rise of Trump, it is amazing that any of us still hold out hope that elections will be decided based on merit.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #474 on: February 12, 2016, 06:26:56 PM »
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.

Is that enough?
I've paid a lot of attention to Kasich, not once have I heard him say he wants ground troops in the middle east he usually says he wants to support our allies in the area to deal with the situation, I've watched every debate and it seems he is the person 2nd least republican candidate likely to send ground troops there(after Rand Paul). I'm not sure what his deal with public transport is but it seems he might oppose it. If by civil right issues you mean gay marriage, he is still against gay marriage but supports the supreme court decision. He is in favor of rehabilitation over imprisonment, and is one of very few republicans that accepted medicaid expansion to help a lot with the drug problem.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #475 on: February 13, 2016, 10:23:51 AM »
Kasich - Wants ground troops in middle east, opposes public transport, only recently "evolved" on civil rights issues, wamts to intensify the war on drugs, would allow schools to teach alternatives to evolution, and he was an investment banker at lehman brothers.

Is that enough?
I've paid a lot of attention to Kasich, not once have I heard him say he wants ground troops in the middle east he usually says he wants to support our allies in the area to deal with the situation, I've watched every debate and it seems he is the person 2nd least republican candidate likely to send ground troops there(after Rand Paul). I'm not sure what his deal with public transport is but it seems he might oppose it. If by civil right issues you mean gay marriage, he is still against gay marriage but supports the supreme court decision. He is in favor of rehabilitation over imprisonment, and is one of very few republicans that accepted medicaid expansion to help a lot with the drug problem.

From the International Business Times: To establish peace in Syria, Kasich said, a broader international coalition, as well as a possible ground invasion, was necessary. The U.S. has been leading an air coalition in Syria, in cooperation with France, Turkey and several other international allies, conducting anti-ISIS bombing campaigns. An air campaign on its own is simply not enough, he said, before adding: We will all be on the ground sooner or later. Sooner is better than later.
http://www.ibtimes.com/john-kasich-foreign-policy-speech-anti-islamic-state-war-terror-urged-republican-2217881

To his credit, he is the only GOP candidate in contention that acknowledges climate change. He has hedged and waffled on equivalency of creationism and evolution as things that should be taught in science classes, so I wouldn't go to far in his understanding/acceptance of science. On the climate issue I'll take Kasich over the other GOP contenders any day, and on other science-related issues he is probably still ahead of the rest of the field.

Leisured

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
  • Age: 73
  • Location: South east Australia, in country
  • Retired, and loving it.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #476 on: February 14, 2016, 05:20:32 AM »
An Australian here, offering my humble opinion on the group of Presidential candidates that can only be described as surreal. Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, recently visited Washington, and in a televised meeting with I think American government officials, was asked how he would work with any of the Presidential candidates, if they became President. He replied that he would work with any President that the American people - in their wisdom - elected to the post. The room laughed good naturedly at this deft diplomatic reply.

I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.

Australians remain baffled by the American fixation of rejecting a national health scheme - alone of all rich countries; supporting the right to bear arms; dodgy ideas on pro life; and lukewarm support for vaccination.

For an middle of the road Australian voter, it is a two horse race; Clinton and Sanders. There is nobody else. Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East. People in the Middle East were living in cities when the ancestors of the posters here were sitting round camp fires, yet western Europe overtook the Middle East by about the seventeenth century. It is a two way street; successive American administrations have not failed in the Middle East because the Middle East is so irrational, incompetent and intransigent that success is not possible.

Sanders wants to turn the US into another Sweden, which would be good for the US, but  Congress will block his proposals.




clarkevii

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Dallas TX
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #477 on: February 14, 2016, 06:58:38 AM »
An Australian here, offering my humble opinion on the group of Presidential candidates that can only be described as surreal. Our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, recently visited Washington, and in a televised meeting with I think American government officials, was asked how he would work with any of the Presidential candidates, if they became President. He replied that he would work with any President that the American people - in their wisdom - elected to the post. The room laughed good naturedly at this deft diplomatic reply.

I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.

Australians remain baffled by the American fixation of rejecting a national health scheme - alone of all rich countries; supporting the right to bear arms; dodgy ideas on pro life; and lukewarm support for vaccination.

For an middle of the road Australian voter, it is a two horse race; Clinton and Sanders. There is nobody else. Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East. People in the Middle East were living in cities when the ancestors of the posters here were sitting round camp fires, yet western Europe overtook the Middle East by about the seventeenth century. It is a two way street; successive American administrations have not failed in the Middle East because the Middle East is so irrational, incompetent and intransigent that success is not possible.

Sanders wants to turn the US into another Sweden, which would be good for the US, but  Congress will block his proposals.

I respect your opinions but I have been following American politics for quite sometime and although he is very animated, Trump told conservatives what they needed to hear tonight. The neocons have been delusional for quite sometime.

Consider three things Trump brought up at the debate:
1. Iraq had no WMD. The whole thing was a lie to get us into war. 9-11 was Bushes fault. He implied that George Bush should of been impeached.
2. All entitlements such as Social Security need to be saved going forward.
3. The "Free Trade" deals TPP and NAFTA have cause underemployment in this country and have done harm.

None of these have been the position of conservatives. Trump is merely pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is truly amazing that Trump has so many conservatives backing him. Maybe he resonates with those voters because he is saying what needs to be said.

As far as his rancor being some kind of low in politics. I disagree. I have turned on British parliament for entertainment. Their insults are just as biting and are rich with British humor. It is the same thing.


« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 07:00:48 AM by clarkevii »

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #478 on: February 15, 2016, 03:44:38 PM »
here are some funny political cartoons that made me laugh

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #479 on: February 15, 2016, 03:53:52 PM »
heres a few more political cartoons

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #480 on: February 15, 2016, 05:18:46 PM »
So it seems both Sanders and maybe also Trump want to tax qualified dividends and capital gains at the same rate as normal income, how much impact would this have for an early retired person? Would tax loss harvesting negate most of this? How much impact would it have for someone in the accumulation phase?
I assume someone in the accumulation phase in a high tax bracket with a lot of money in taxable accounts will be hurt by this most. Im also worried Sanders might try to prevent things like tax loss harvesting, hed probably say something like, the Wall Street top one percenters are using this to avoid paying any taxes and its unethical, we bailed them out of the 2008 crisis and now they get to pay for it! No avoiding it! What does everyone else think

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #481 on: February 15, 2016, 05:35:34 PM »
So it seems both Sanders and maybe also Trump want to tax qualified dividends and capital gains at the same rate as normal income, how much impact would this have for an early retired person? Would tax loss harvesting negate most of this? How much impact would it have for someone in the accumulation phase?
I assume someone in the accumulation phase in a high tax bracket with a lot of money in taxable accounts will be hurt by this most. Im also worried Sanders might try to prevent things like tax loss harvesting, hed probably say something like, the Wall Street top one percenters are using this to avoid paying any taxes and its unethical, we bailed them out of the 2008 crisis and now they get to pay for it! No avoiding it! What does everyone else think
I think that Congress writes the budget and he has not fought for this prior so there is no reason to do so now.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #482 on: February 15, 2016, 05:42:21 PM »
So it seems both Sanders and maybe also Trump want to tax qualified dividends and capital gains at the same rate as normal income, how much impact would this have for an early retired person? Would tax loss harvesting negate most of this? How much impact would it have for someone in the accumulation phase?
I assume someone in the accumulation phase in a high tax bracket with a lot of money in taxable accounts will be hurt by this most. I’m also worried Sanders might try to prevent things like tax loss harvesting, he’d probably say something like, “the Wall Street top one percenters are using this to avoid paying any taxes and it’s unethical, we bailed them out of the 2008 crisis and now they get to pay for it! No avoiding it!” What does everyone else think

Taxing cap gains & qualified dividends like ordinary income sucks for me in early retirement. But, I can deal with it.

I don't see how banning tax loss harvesting is workable. You already can't buy 'substantially identical' stocks, and you have a $3000 limit on capital losses against ordinary income, and wash rules must be adhered to as well. I think Bernie Sanders will focus more on the high frequency trading stuff (edit: and trying to tax cap gains like ord income).  Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me there are bigger things his administration would focus on besides TLH. Besides, tax law isn't up to the executive branch, it's up to Congress. Maybe he could have some influence over the way the IRS interprets tax law (?), but I don't see them going so far as changing the treatment of various kinds of income, or changing the way tax loss harvesting is dealt with.

That said, I'm hardly an expert on tax law, so, correct me if I'm wrong here.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 05:59:13 PM by Malaysia41 »

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #483 on: February 15, 2016, 05:42:46 PM »
This says he wants to partially fund his medicare for all health care this way

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4567
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #484 on: February 15, 2016, 05:51:30 PM »
Yes, it does.  However, politicians say a lot.  What matters really is part performance.  He'll start up there, others will say no, they will negotiate to it being below earned income but progressive, like earned income (aka increase the cap) and done.  If it actually even gets anywhere.  Still don't think it will happen based on his previous behaviors.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #485 on: February 15, 2016, 06:00:10 PM »
edited my post to be more clear that I was focusing on TLH not on CGs being taxed as ord income.  I do know that taxing CGs as ord income is something he's been pushing.

I'm 100% for closing the carried interest loophole. That's bullshit.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6800
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #486 on: February 15, 2016, 06:01:46 PM »
What Bernie Sanders says about changing tax laws doesn't worry me in the least.  The President has exactly zero power to do that, and the people who DO have that power (Congress) are still very much in the pocket of Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, so they won't change anything.

But it would be hilarious to watch.  Every week, Sanders would go on youtube and say "I want the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who have benefited the most from capitalism, to pay for the services that capitalism provides" and Congress would immediately say "Fuck you Bernie Sanders, we hate the poor.  More tax breaks for the rich!"  And then they would pass more tax breaks for the rich, because they have the power to do that and the President doesn't.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #487 on: February 15, 2016, 06:10:14 PM »
What Bernie Sanders says about changing tax laws doesn't worry me in the least.  The President has exactly zero power to do that, and the people who DO have that power (Congress) are still very much in the pocket of Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, so they won't change anything.

But it would be hilarious to watch.  Every week, Sanders would go on youtube and say "I want the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who have benefited the most from capitalism, to pay for the services that capitalism provides" and Congress would immediately say "Fuck you Bernie Sanders, we hate the poor.  More tax breaks for the rich!"  And then they would pass more tax breaks for the rich, because they have the power to do that and the President doesn't.
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #488 on: February 15, 2016, 06:12:01 PM »
What Bernie Sanders says about changing tax laws doesn't worry me in the least.  The President has exactly zero power to do that, and the people who DO have that power (Congress) are still very much in the pocket of Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, so they won't change anything.

But it would be hilarious to watch.  Every week, Sanders would go on youtube and say "I want the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who have benefited the most from capitalism, to pay for the services that capitalism provides" and Congress would immediately say "Fuck you Bernie Sanders, we hate the poor.  More tax breaks for the rich!"  And then they would pass more tax breaks for the rich, because they have the power to do that and the President doesn't.

Yep - the point I was trying to make too - executive branch doesn't make tax law.
That said ... in a few years if Congress turns left, some of this could happen.

In the meantime, I do think Congress might close the carried interest loophole - that seems to have bipartisan legs. I don't see them changing the tax rates or QD/LTCG rates anytime soon, however.

wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #489 on: February 15, 2016, 06:24:43 PM »
Hillary's Campaign logo is hideous, reminds me of a hospital. Who the hell got paid the big bucks to come up with THAT?

I got tired of everyone asking if the bus was an old hospital ambulance so I had some fun so they would know the difference.


ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2976
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #490 on: February 16, 2016, 06:12:04 AM »
Clinton has experience, and I am amazed at those posters who criticize her for being part of earlier efforts to intervene in the even more surreal Middle East.

This argument works equally well for Donald Rumsfeld. The Middle East is difficult, so success or failure shouldn't be judged, just years of experience? Actual people die when the USA bombs and invades places. It's a moral imperative to judge failure harshly.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #491 on: February 16, 2016, 07:55:47 AM »
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?

That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #492 on: February 16, 2016, 09:33:50 AM »
In response to people who ponder the popularity of Trump, I listened to this episode of "This American Life" yesterday (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/578/i-thought-i-knew-you). One of the segments was a fascinating series of interviews between a Southern Baptist minister with a huge radio following who holds significant sway in elections (candidates seek his endorsement) and one of his long-time, loyal followers. The minister is incensed because so many of his listeners support Trump, despite the guy having no apparent moral grounding.

Other than the interviewer rushing to describe her perception of the listener-turned-Trump-fan (rather than letting the "This American Life" listeners reach their own conclusions), I thought it was a good segment. Actually the whole episode was great.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #493 on: February 16, 2016, 02:16:23 PM »
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?

That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knows

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #494 on: February 16, 2016, 02:36:39 PM »
I really don't like Trumps candidacy and I think he is a dangerous candidate for one very simple reason. He is giving validity to peoples are and hate and focusing it on immigrants and Muslims. This is a very negative and dangerous path to encourage. Immigration reform is one thing but he is playing on peoples anger and focusing it in a way that is encouraging hate among his supports and emboldening racists.

Though I will say it is nice to see a GOP candidate sticking it to their establishment candidates. The guy really doesn't give a shit if he gets booed or cheered, he just gives whatever over the line opinion he feels like giving that night.

Policy wise, neither Bernie nor Trump can do a great deal to mess up or improve our current political system, at least not in 2 terms. Neither have the full backing of their party. I fear Trumps social influence which is the only reason I don't want him to win. Bernie winning could influence the Democratic party to start to shift some of its stances to be more socialist if that is where our base is moving.

Rand Paul never had a chance because there needs to be a ground swell of support for more libertarian ideas within the Republican party. Bernie is similar extreme, the only difference is the current popular sentiment. Like Socialist ideas I think some libertarian ideas can be implemented to help find ways to strip away bureaucracy where it is not working.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #495 on: February 16, 2016, 02:54:02 PM »
I really don't like Trumps candidacy and I think he is a dangerous candidate for one very simple reason. He is giving validity to peoples are and hate and focusing it on immigrants and Muslims. This is a very negative and dangerous path to encourage. Immigration reform is one thing but he is playing on peoples anger and focusing it in a way that is encouraging hate among his supports and emboldening racists.

Though I will say it is nice to see a GOP candidate sticking it to their establishment candidates. The guy really doesn't give a shit if he gets booed or cheered, he just gives whatever over the line opinion he feels like giving that night.

Policy wise, neither Bernie nor Trump can do a great deal to mess up or improve our current political system, at least not in 2 terms. Neither have the full backing of their party. I fear Trumps social influence which is the only reason I don't want him to win. Bernie winning could influence the Democratic party to start to shift some of its stances to be more socialist if that is where our base is moving.

Rand Paul never had a chance because there needs to be a ground swell of support for more libertarian ideas within the Republican party. Bernie is similar extreme, the only difference is the current popular sentiment. Like Socialist ideas I think some libertarian ideas can be implemented to help find ways to strip away bureaucracy where it is not working.
Trump definitely cares about being booed or cheered, he gets pissed when people boo during the debates and he always tries to say oh that's just jeb supporters or something, he is an egotist and wants to be the center of attention and wants to be cheered. I really wish Rand Paul would become our president, maybe 2020 will be his year

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #496 on: February 16, 2016, 02:57:03 PM »
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?

That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knows

Getting good policy passed is ideal, but preventing bad policy from being passed is better than nothing. Even Clinton supports --  or might be inclined to compromise on -- too much bad policy (e.g. the TPP) to be a good choice, let alone any of the Republicans.

DeltaBond

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
  • Location: U.S.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #497 on: February 16, 2016, 06:16:28 PM »


I watched Trump's performances on TV with my mouth open. Why does anyone support this man? I remember last year when he criticized John McCain for incompetence on being taken prisoner during the Vietnam War. In any other rich country, Trump would have been thrown out of the door for that atrocity alone. His feet would not even have touched the ground.


Fair to post your observances, its very interesting to read... as I've been curious how people in other countries are taking it all, without knowing the full backgrounds of, well, everything you name here.  I will comment on this one thing, as I'm a military veteran, I work for veterans here in the US, and I will tell you this much... veterans here do not like McCain, especially the former POWs.  A lot of them use the word "hate", and if you feel like it, you can google up on that one and learn why.  I was working in my job a few years before I learned why they hate him so much, it is worth a google search.  So its not a shock to a lot of veterans that when Trump pointed out some things about that issue that he gained a lot of popularity.

Anyway, just a little food for your thought there.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3126
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #498 on: February 16, 2016, 07:28:42 PM »
Except Bernie would veto tax breaks for the rich, and I doubt they could get 2/3 to override it. So it sounds like most of you only are backing Bernie to get gridlock?

That seems like a stretch -- I can't speak for sol, but I'm backing Sanders because he's the best person for the job, and the gridlock (blocking further corporatist abuse) is just an added bonus.
it just seems like a lot of people like him for his policies, and simultaneously think he has no chance of getting any of his policies through congress, it seems weird to me. Nobody expected Obama to pass Obamacare but he got a democratic majority in the senate and house and was able to pass it, it could happen with Bernie, but who knows, democrats might be under pressure from donors who don't want to fund a single payer system but who knows

For many people I think it's about character and judgement more than anything.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #499 on: February 17, 2016, 01:21:45 PM »