Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 406  Next

   

When you start campaigning to be the POTUS you have to know that everything you've said will come back to haunt you and might be twisted to make you look bad. It's happening to Trump and Hillary so why should Bernie get a pass? He said he'd tax at 90% so when he said it doesn't matter. His comparison to the Eisenhower years is another story all together. During the Eisenhower administration the world had just finished WWII and America had wiped out all competition for their corporations and because of that simple fact there was no reason to relocate or attempt to hide their wealth because they were the only game in town.

Now it's a totally different ball game from 70 years ago. There is extreme competition from a myriad of countries with corporations who pay alot less taxes and employ alot of really cheap labour. So, if your government starts raising taxes to extreme rates what option do you have other than relocating to another country that keeps you competitive with the tax brakes and cheap labour like the ones being given to your competitors.

But TBH it's nice to see that he's suddenly not talking about 90% marginal taxes anymore and has scaled them back to 50%.



As for corporate malfeasance nobody has a problem with holding them accountable for their actions and making them pay a fair share but, what alot of people have a problem with is taxing them out of either the country or existence to pander to your voter base. This is one problem Bernie is going to have if he gets elected because, when he was talking the 90% tax his voter base apparently thought it meant on every bit of income the rich and corporations made.

Bernie also goes on to say he wants to tax these corporations hidden bank accounts in places like the Caymen Islands but, that's misnomer because if you read his platform it apparently also includes any monies they make outside of America.



I seriously doubt any major conglomerate or corporations is going to sit back and watch while Bernie starts taxing profits they've made out of the country. My guess is there'll be alot of relocating if his economic platform ever comes to fruition.

To be effective Bernie is going to have to stop trying to be the complete socialist who's going to change the world and start using a lot more common sense when dealing with the people who are paying a very high portion of the freight because, if they walk the US will become a third world country before you can say "Occupy Wall Street"

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/ec ... index.html

   

   

Now that's a diversified market.

Do these companies employ enough people to buy their services if corporations and companies like Exxon, Walmart, Berkshire Hathaway, General Electric, Chevron and General Motors, relocate their corporate headquarters and facilities to much greener pastures because that might just happen if they start getting taxed into oblivion?

   

   

But PD, who IS John Galt?

Ah, Atlas Shrugged, a book with rambling monologues so long even I got bored, and I like long and rambling.

Thanks, Bart, for giving PD a rep. Wish I could join you in doing so for the same reasons.

I only really care when it's "line by line" where context tends to be removed so as to give a super short response which doesn't answer much. Nothing you did here removes context, and you've written some long responses (thanks for taking the time, I appreciate it!) so I definitely don't mind. This makes it all much more organized, so that's really damned awesome of you. Thank you for the links as well!

I think that what you heard is a good way of looking at things. Personally, I find rapid change finds itself reversed or in polarized light more often than not, and isn't utopian socialism the one where a peaceful transition is wanted anyways? The Star Trek of the future and all that, with incremental baby steps. Personally, I'd look at it this way; why sacrifice current welfare that we know can be grabbed, especially when weighing against benefits that can be so far off as to not impact any of the current generations? If it makes our generations better off, the general rule is that it should help make future generations better off too. At least in my own no doubt bizarre view.

Regardless, my response!



I wouldn't expect much cheer from an audience when the response to "how will you help our historic and ongoing injustices" and his response really didn't help there. Inequality sounds great, but it's really hard for black people to look at it in terms of "will I still be disadvantaged in getting a job," or "will I find the racial glass ceiling still?" The problem that the audience wants solved is what keeps them out of the work force or out of jobs they are qualified for, not necessarily what happens when the already have their jobs. When a group of people find their dreams of what they want to do for a living have a lot more barriers in front of them, Bernie's response ignoring that issue and talking about inequality overall doesn't really change their views. I don't think it's odd he's having trouble reaching out. Improving inequality levels helps fix a lot, but it doesn't answer the pre-existing social issues which can cause, is causing, and could continue to cause inequality for specific minorities. Bernie really needs to confront that lacking response in his platform, in my opinion.

I also don't think it's a band-aid progressive policy for people who are seriously interested in racial justice. Sure, the argument here is that maybe we can make existing jobs more equitable or give a better social welfare net. But if the black population of the US continues to need it as persistently higher levels, what does that change? If there is still a lack of access to economic actors, what does it do? Bernie tried to have his cake and eat it too. He can talk about inequality programs working to fix these issues, sure, but he has to recognize what it is like living as a black person in the USA in the here and now. His talk of a pretty future sounds great, but it doesn't change the economic situation of tens of millions of Americans now. While I can't condemn him his stance which is pro-BLM and pro-sexual rights, I can condemn his silence and his choice to make it a mild and minor issue in his campaign. I also don't think there is much separating him from Clinton on these issues, and unlike Sanders, Clinton seems willing to talk about abortion, gay marriage and BLM front and centre, and has been.

Sure, inequality is what he's good at, but he has to be good at more. A lot more. At this point though I think you and I agree that we have a lot more privilege in this situation, and can get away with not caring as much if he doesn't focus on minority issues. He will, come voting days, need that support, though. Social justice is a cornerstone of what socialism is supposed to be working to achieve; talking only about inequality in terms that ignore that aspect of socialism is going to be a problem for him.

As for what is not news, things like rally sizes (which, until recently, were quite small), endorsements recieved (he has 2, compared to Clintons triple digits) and youth support (it mattered once in the last 30 years) I don't think actually paint Sanders in that great of a light. Indeed, when it comes to news coverage, I agree with Sanders; we should be talking about the issues. The problem here is that for Sanders, it is and continues to be largely "issue."



Frankly, most politicians are expected to begin releasing their tax ideas at some point. When they are ludicrous (and they normally are) they get torn apart. The difference here is that Sanders has claimed his plan as vitally important, but even details or aspects on it are sparse. Sure, he's going to increase corporate tax, reduce loopholes, inheritance tax, etc, but what are his actual plans? The details and the spending? If he is going to talk about one thing, I want to see what his actual plan looks like. Is this going to be the socialism he claims, or is this going to be big labour? Are we going to see a health care plan, or are we going to see basically an addendum to Obamacare? It's easy to say the right words, and he has been, but I want to begin seeing some details soon, and I've had some differing views from Sanders supporters on what they think his plans are.

I think there is a legitimate concern regarding small banks. Small banks are going to do the same thing as each other, because they all have the incentives to do so, just like in the current market, and at the end of the day they are exposed to the same market pressures as the big banks, which can cause collapse. My problem with Bernie here is that he has painted this as the solution, that somehow shadow banking will end and small banks won't collapse as much as big banks and that, in the case of an economic catastrophe, we can let some small banks fail. I don't think that without changing regulation and the existing atmosphere that we can expect banks to act differently, and ask I mentioned with the example from the thirties, too many banks failing is a similar problem. Bernie really does need to discuss macroprudential policy, and he really needs to link it to the issues he sees, because otherwise nothing will happen if you break down the big banks. Nor, frankly, do I think there is a way to break down banks properly. The smallest "too big to fail" bank is generally agreed to be one worth 70 billion. How many times do you have to break down the 2.4 trillion behemoth that is JP Morgan? How many banks do you need to make at the end of the day? And when they are done, what happens when big banks from other countries move in to fill the space (BMO, for example, is already active down in the States but continues to be a Canadian bank)? It's really easy to decry the banking system using the right words, but it's really hard to offer up a real solution, and so far Bernie has avoided discussing it in any more detail. It's "break down too big to fail" as his solution. It needs more.

As for nationalizing the credit rating system, I heard he wanted to go the "non-profit" route (the US government having some level of control over credit ratings being perhaps problematic)? Regardless, someone still has to pay for it to be done, so even if there isn't a profit motive for the company, the issues remain. Like you, I hope he has someone advising him, because when it comes to dealing with Wall Street, there's a lot of better plans to use or people for him to go after.

I too agree that Bernie would probably be more hostile to troublemaking actors on Wall Street. No disagreement. Hopefully he'd be more efficacious in handling it too.

As for begging for high turnout, I'm more hoping he'd drive the "hope" and "change" turnout that most candidates do. He really is different from most prior candidates on both sides, so that helps him actually seem like one such candidate. If he can get people behind him, I say go for it. However, as it stands, like I mentioned before, I feel there is a ceiling to his momentum.



Hmm, hopefully I didn't push it to harshly here, and avoided being purposefully offensive. If I was, I apologize, and hope you'd point it out to me (either here or via PM) so I can avoid it in the future.

While I've never heard of "BernieBro," I won't lie, the community of Bernie supporters does, oddly enough, feel a lot like the reddit (or atheism, sadly) community. Definitely left-leaning or libertarian-leaning, but with an awkward association with being mostly male and having mostly male figures and women finding themselves left out of the conversation. While I also don't like categorizing people, I feel like it's also partially because of what Bernie is focused on; he is running a fairly confrontational campaign on a predominantly economic platform, which is far more likely to attract men than women, and with a lack of discussion on social issues, is not likely to attract many non-white voters, women, or other minorities. If "Bernie fans are feminists, anti-racists, and activists," it hasn't been showing in who they have been attracting; again, because I feel Clinton has done a better job on engaging in those issues. Further, the example you mentioned before, regarding affirmative action, is probably an excellent locus of this kind of issue. Bernie is asked a question of economic justice for black people, and instead uses the "universal" (or white) experience to explain why, when are all equal, then black people will be equal too (ignoring the current issues facing black people economically). In a system of equal improvement, as is described, the whites are still in a better position than the black population when it comes to opportunity. It kind of stings that Bernie doesn't recognize that.

One of my friends pointed out to me that being a "feminist," or being "anti-racist" in a progressive white area is easy and is unburdened. Vermont is not exactly filled with ghettos, racial segregation, disadvantaged minorities and such. It's not a day-to-day concern, and most issues are based on respect and such. When you get to regions where it is a problem, the flavour of such issues changes dramatically. I think it's why, in the North East and in predominantly white cities, where economic equality is at the top of the docket, Bernie does so well, because the kind of anti-racism espoused by a mostly white population who don't see the problems up close likes what he says. Those who are more used to the day to day lack of social and economic and judicial and institutional equity for the black populations who are still anti-racist or feminist have a fairly different view, one less forgiving. It's easy to talk about inequality alone in communities where that divide is not as extreme, especially progressive and upper class neighbourhoods. It's probably not going to resonate in parts of Chicago, where the societal cleaves are far worse and the issues are less about respect between people and more about abject poverty.

tl;dr, different black people and different women have different issues, and I think different people have different struggles in mind when considering Bernie Sanders' position on race, even if all are generally anti-racist or feminist. Does this even make sense? It's the fun aspect of intersectionality (which in and of itself is a great mindfuck to go through life considering, haha).

Clinton no doubt gets help from her husband's legacy, you are definitely correct there, I agree, but I do think she has done good things on her own. She's worked closely with the country's first black president and has been front and centre in a lot of discussions and debates on human rights issues. Her response to the Charleston shootings, among other racial issues, have been immediate, prominent and well written. She doesn't have a half bad past on those issues either. Her easy support of her husband's stance is something she can own too.

I think Bernie does have a solution here, and it's to recognize the issues facing minority groups, and that it's more than a question or providing better government services or better wages or better infrastructure, etc, etc. There are unique struggles in America, they can't all be solved by the same blanket policy, hence why BLM used to protest his stump speeches until he finally paid attention. When he recognizes that, I think his support will grow far more quickly and find that ceiling I mentioned before begin to break away.



I said nothing about a singular tweet. As a follower of the Sanders campaign, you might have noticed that since basically the second democratic debate Sanders has been going after Trump every chance he gets, pointing to polls showing he'd win one on one against Trump, fighting Trump's economic stance at every point, etc, etc. Trump responded, and with Clinton ignoring Trump, Sanders got a lot more time on the air. I didn't attribute it to a singular event, but a chain of Sanders essentially ignoring Clinton and going for the locus of democratic distaste -- Trump.

While Bernie has an impressive grassroots campaign, this section is about garnering the attention of the media, which is inherently more important. No offence to the legion of supporters working hard for Sanders, but there's a reason Trump has spent so little yet is so high in the polls, and it's because millions of people hear about him every day, see his picture on television, and hears his voice on the radio. Trump is the epitome of media control, and Sanders needed to begin playing that game.

The problem for me is that Sanders didn't change how he acted to begin having the media work with them, he declared media a corporate enemy that was out to get him (whereas the Republicans claim it's all a liberal conspiracy out to get them, there's a problematic parallel) and then didn't change how he acted until, probably, someone on his campaign team told him to begin talking about Trump. Or, you know, he could have begun talking about something new so he could get on the news, but then we'd have to separate him from his stump speech and I'm worried he'd get separation anxiety.

I agree that my use of middle of the road was incorrect, and otherwise agree with the rest of that section, especially the improving outlook for Bernie.



I agree he has changed how he acts, but I think it's partly for the better. Being the "angry white guy" is not something I wanted to see, so I think his more recent changes have been positive. For me, it's mostly that he seems to be rewriting his personal history a bit, which bugs me, and his trend of avoiding current and foreign affairs.

Frankly, Clinton doesn't have a leg to stand on with the gay rights stuff, I think you are right here, but I think given she was in a more powerful position when she came out in support of gay rights, and actually made use of that power (such as with various issues in Africa and as a prebuttal to the growing Russia problem) during her time in office, I'm willing to give her a little more credit. With her history on women's issues and her (perhaps by association with her husband) support of the black community, she does feel to have more recent and more efficacious activist credentials. That said, she definitely has her own share of skeevy and problematic issues that offsets it as well. I also think she knows, however, that this is a strength of her's; she's willing to fight about guns, given her record, and she knows her recent advocacy sounds a little more robust to the average person, if perhaps a little lacking on the gay rights front.

I agree on your running mate commentary with regards to age, bravo. My only remark is not to be too let down if she does not become a running mate; if she ends up in charge of any number of portfolio positions, she could be even more effective and tenacious than as a vice president, or even as president. 'tis the impressive power that both Warren and Turner have, in my opinion.

I don't think he'd have an easy time of it, but my point more had to do with how he seems to be trying to be at the forefront of all these political choices, but actually wasn't. I'd have loved if he had agitated more (even if he wasn't running) for some of the stances he now says he supported in the long-term, but he didn't, and I'm quite saddened (as you mentioned, I think we both were saddened) but this seeming choice of political expediency.



Ron Paul was only 2% behind Romney and was ahead of Santorum going into the Iowa caucuses, and ended up winning half of the youth vote and was only 3% behind the front runner. He moved on with as many delegates as Romney. He also came in second in the New Hampshire primary, admittedly with a larger gap. He got three more delegates in South Carolina. It's not heavily discussed, but at the end of the primaries, Ron Paul held the second highest amount of delegates. He had a chance, it just slipped away as time went on.

I also don't think that Bernie is that "core" of the democrats. He has his share of issues (as I've pointed out) that either his record of his lack of rhetoric takes him from the norm. He is definitely a more left-leaning candidate, as a self-declared socialist seeking single-payer healthcare.

Personally, I made the connection because a lot of the Paul supporters on my Facebook are now Bernie supporters, and the narratives they claim now are shockingly similar to the ones I heard all those years ago during 2012. I'm sure it's being used as a mudslinging statement, but as I pointed out in my last post, there is a fairly long line of similarities I've found it hard to shake off.

The polls-plus was introduced by Silver because this year a lot of the polling is being done electronically or via automated methods, which he doesn't trust as much. While it's still the majority aspect of the measurement, there's a series of other historic trends which have been useful in betting who is going to win a primary, or what it even means if someone wins. Essentially what he is trying to measure is how what people say to the polls differ from what actually happens. This is very similar to what happened in the UK election, where exit polls pointed to a sudden conservative majority even though many polls were claiming they were far from it. Silver has since been coming up with new ways of measuring that difference since.

That said, it hasn't actually been tested yet, so we will see. You could be right (your concerns make sense to me). Remember, it's not that Clinton will get 55%, only that she still has a 55% chance of winning by his reckoning.



Your response was great! As before, I agreed with a fair chunk of it, and I hope that was sufficiently acknowledged in my post. Sorry if mine is a little wonky, I'm in the midst of resume writing and this is my break activity. I think you might be right about the sources of my scepticism, and I have no doubt this is what's given me pause and making me view him through perhaps a different lens than your average voter. I'm gonna spend the next little bit trawling his twitter because it looks fun.

   

   

The fact that Hillary Clinton is a cut throat bitch who will pander to ANY crowd is a self evident truth.

That is why Bernie Sanders (and Donald Trump) are attractive to many people they ACTUALLY mean what they say.

   

You're also including this guy in that group, right?



Remember, he's the hypocrite who argued for higher taxes on the rich in Ireland and then the moment those taxes applied to HIM he left the country.

   

   

That's Bono from the band U2. And you're right that he's a selfish shitbag.

   

   

I don't like Bono either. I actually agree with conservatives when they say "Liberals are obsessed with celebrities." Quite a few liberals do have a celebrity obsession. It's actually a big problem.

Bono is a $cientologist ... but he isn't as bad as Lennon.

http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/

   

Damn, that list is pretty bad but this part is the worst:

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 406  Next