U.S. Presidential Primary

[autumn08]

the only rational choice is Hillary. I'd rather have someone who knows what their doing

As many have pointed out, Bernie Sanders comes across as someone with high integrity, and also, he would like to pass legislation which would make campaigns publicly financed. Given the power special interests, do you think it would be a wasted opportunity not to vote for Bernie Sanders?

[FTMax]

1) Bernie Sanders.

2) My President of choice would be Rand Paul, but he doesn't have a shot at this point in the game thanks to unqualified candidates wasting everyone's time. I'd much rather give a vote to Bernie to avoid Hillary. Transparency and integrity are the two things I value most, and unfortunately Hillary is pretty short on both of those these days. I'd vote for her over any of the likely Republican nominees if she gets the nomination. But not in the primary.

3) Donald Trump or Ben Carson.

4) Donald Trump is a xenophobe, and Ben Carson has proven time and time again that he cannot understand foreign policy even with excellent advisors. They both have the least political experience of the bunch, and that's not what we need at this point.

[autumn08]

(1) Sanders, probably.  I don't think he is likely to be the nominee.  If it's Hillary v. the Republicans, I will bite the bullet and vote for Hillary, though she's really too conservative and hawkish for me.

(2) Lots of reasons for Sanders:  To break up the biggest banks.  To stop the increasing divide in economic and social inequality we are experiencing.  Because he recognizes that climate change and environmental disaster are ultimately the biggest threats we face.  Because he advocates increased public funding of college education.  Because he's not afraid of the word "socialist."

(3) Ted Cruz.

(4) Lots of people are angry with government because of bad things that government does, or maybe because of good things that government fails to do.  Ted Cruz stands all of that on its head.  Ted Cruz hates government because of the good things it does.  He ran for the Senate expressly for the purpose of going to Washington to shut down the government and cause chaos.

On the point that Hillary is too hawkish, do you share Deborah's point of view that the U.S. military should withdraw from Syria, so as increase to the probability that Assad can reassert control? One of the counter arguments to this strategy is that Sunni extremists will continue to foment conflict in the region and contribute to international terrorism, unless the Sunni regions are given greater autonomy, as this would cause moderate Sunnis to reject extremists, because then rejection would no longer abet a Shia government. Many argue that the only way the region can be federalized, and thus potentially moderated, is with greater U.S. involvement.

[stephaniec]

As many have pointed out, Bernie Sanders comes across as someone with high integrity, and also, he would like to pass legislation which would make campaigns publicly financed. Given the power special interests, do you think it would be a wasted opportunity not to vote for Bernie Sanders?

for my own personal opinion yes, experience trumps the  positives he may offer.

[sparrow]

1) Sanders, even if I think I'm throwing my vote away.
2) End the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

3) Trump.
4) He's got too much of a hard-on for Putin -- I was distraught when I saw that Totalitarian Dictator Brofist go down.  I'm afraid that Xi Jinping will want to get in on that action.  He's way too excited about taking away the rights of citizens, domestic and foreign.  He doesn't care about human rights.  Our country was nearly bankrupted because of financial deregulation, and he'd happily sign away our fiscal stability in exchange for a dollar.  He talks ->-bleeped-<- about decorated war heroes.  He's been losing money hand over fist year after year, and people still think he's a good businessman who should run our country (into the ground).  He's all spin, all personality, all hair, and all slime.  In the end he's just a sorry little man who talks the biggest game and can't back it up.  He'd be worse for the US than Napoleon was for France.  He's racist.  He's sexist.  He thinks that anybody poorer than him is worthless (that means YOU).  And that's just a start.

[Tysilio]

Quote from: autumn08 on Today at 11:00:43 pm

    As many have pointed out, Bernie Sanders comes across as someone with high integrity, and also, he would like to pass legislation which would make campaigns publicly financed. Given the power special interests, do you think it would be a wasted opportunity not to vote for Bernie Sanders?

for my own personal opinion yes, experience trumps the  positives he may offer.

Mr. Sanders was first elected to public office in 1981, and has served continuously since then. That's close to 35 years of experience, and that's just as an elected official. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, including as a participant in Dr. King's March on Washington in 1963.

And he's done all this on integrity and strength of character, without benefit of a personal fortune, or a husband in politics and establishment support and money.

That's a good enough record for me.

[stephaniec]

for my own personal opinion yes, experience trumps the  positives he may offer.

Mr. Sanders was first elected to public office in 1981, and has served continuously since then. That's close to 35 years of experience, and that's just as an elected official. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, including as a participant in Dr. King's March on Washington in 1963.

And he's done all this on integrity and strength of character, without benefit of a personal fortune, or a husband in politics and establishment support and money.

That's a good enough record for me.

Well, come November we'll see what everyone else thinks.

[stephaniec]

I really don't understand the negativity for a well educated, well qualified, experienced female president or Queen.

[Yukari-sensei]

I really don't understand the negativity for a well educated, well qualified, experienced female president or Queen.

Non enthusiasm is not the same as negativity. I would vote for Hillary, but her gender is not a factor under consideration for my vote. I would have been just as enthusiastic for Elizabeth Warren as I am for Bernie in all candor.

My objections to her come from her perpetuation of the neoliberal economic policies of her predecessors. America needs a severe Keynesian shift in order to save the economic, and ultimately political power of the middle and working class.

[autumn08]

1) Bernie Sanders

2) The neoliberal voodoo economic policies instituted under Reagan have alienated workers from their increased productivity while the overburdened middle class has been forced to pay for the idle wealthy and corporatist shirking their social responsibilities. We need a candidate who is aware of this problem so it can be alleviated and is not for sale to the highest bidders.

3) With the possible exception of Kasich, any Republican is a horrible option for the US. Trump may remind me of the fascist rally in "The Wall" but he's just more vocal than the others who seem to be stumbling over themselves to agree with him.

4) Far from the conservatism outlined by Goldwater or Buckley, the current batch of Republicans have become the worst of both worlds. They have become socially authoritarian while simultaneously screwing up the laissez faire policies they champion...there is too much money to be made by turning a blind eye to making laws favor the plutocrats after all. Not to mention being permissive of the economic serfdom of the middle and working class... Just a bad option all around...

Why do you think there has been a divergence between productivity and wage growth since 1979?

What do you think about the argument that taxes should be cut, in order to increase competition, so more part time workers can to find full time employment and to increase competition for labor, so wages could increase?

[Deborah]

Globalization with our inequitable free trade policies combined with excess foreign workers.  So fewer jobs are available, particularly lower skilled jobs, with an abundance of people willing to work at slave wages while they send money out of the country.  So:
- An imbalance in foreign trade
- the loss of our manufacturing base as corporations move jobs to other countries.
- Illegal immigration
- H2B visas
- H1B visas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lyndsey]

1) For which candidate are you voting?

2) Why?

3) Which candidate would you least like to see as the U.S. president?

4) Why?

Benny Hill

[autumn08]

So far, Deborah, Haeden, April, Yukari-sensei, and Eevee have nailed it with their informed and thoughtful responses.

All the Republican candidates are beholden to the corporate plutocrats who are rapidly taking over the power structure in the US. Ms. Clinton is no better in that regard. She, and, any of the Republicans will assuredly, if elected, make the lives of ordinary people worse than they are now; Ms. Clinton may be somewhat less likely to start WWIII, but she will continue the state of perpetual war which is destroying the populations of much of the world.

Mr. Sanders is only slightly better than she when it comes to foreign policy, but when it comes to domestic policy, he is the only candidate who has a clue about what is actually happening in this country; he gets it about the dangers of plutocracy (kleptocracy may be a better word for it), and he does seem to give a d**m about the 99%.

I fear most for this country if Mr. Trump is elected, because his behavior makes him a fascist in everything but name.

What do you think about the Iranian Nuclear Deal?

Do do you think the deal should have been made, considering the loophole that Iran may be able to collect its own samples at the Parchin military site, rather than allowing IAEA inspectors physical access?

Do you think sanctions should be reimposed considering Iran tested Emad rockets, which are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon?

[autumn08]

1. I don't know who the Democratic nominee will be. Whoever it is gets my vote. I kinda like Martin O'Malley, who unfortunately, will not be the nominee. He fits somewhere between Clinton and Sanders.

2. The defense industry gets too much of our tax dollars — there is no more Soviet Union. If we reduced the defense budget and the 1% paid the taxes they should there will be plenty of money to provide quality healthcare and education, as well as social security for the elderly (me). The unemployment rate will plummet when public works projects are roads, bridges, public transportation, and airports rather than football stadiums. No Republican, and most Democrats, will do these things. Elect me for gawd's sake.

3. Any and all Republicans.

4. Republicans are effing nuts.

Defense spending consisted of 5.7% of GDP in 2011 and is expected to decline to 3.8% of GDP by 2020 (total government spending has been around 20% of GDP since the 1960s, but this is predicted to increase, as expenditures in Social Security and Medicare are increasing). Since the 1960s foreign aid has decreased from 1% of GDP to 0.3% of GDP. Do you think these are positive trends considering the instability of the Middle East, and recent Russian aggression?

[Kclaire86]

1) Bernie Sanders

2) He seems to speak to me, he seems to share my beliefs... initially I was going to vote for O'Malley (I'm from MD... state pride lol)

3) Donald Trump

4) He seems like he'd ruin this country and completely destroy any sort of progress any equality movement has made in the history of the U.S.A.

[autumn08]

I'm sorry that I continually argue from a right wing perspective, but given the dearth of right wingers, in order to facilitate conversation I don't have a choice.

[Deborah]

Asking what military spending should be is the wrong question.  The right question is what does the executive branch expect the military to do within the context of their National Security Strategy.  Then fund the military to be able to do that.

Right now it's underfunded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tysilio]

What do you think about the Iranian Nuclear Deal?

Do do you think the deal should have been made, considering the loophole that Iran may be able to collect its own samples at the Parchin military site, rather than allowing IAEA inspectors physical access?

Do you think sanctions should be reimposed considering Iran tested Emad rockets, which are capable of delivering a nuclear weapon?

It was long overdue, and I'm delighted it finally happened.

Iran isn't a threat. Not to us, not to Israel. For an informed perspective on this, see this piece in Salon by Juan Cole, who is right up there with Scott Ritter as an expert on this stuff. (Anyone who doesn't know who Scott Ritter is should find out before expressing opinions on much of anything in the Middle East.)

[itsApril]

Defense spending consisted of 5.7% of GDP in 2011 and is expected to decline to 3.8% of GDP by 2020 (total government spending has been around 20% of GDP since the 1960s, but this is predicted to increase, as expenditures in Social Security and Medicare are increasing).

The United States spends as much on defense as the next ten highest spending countries combined.  And most of those ten countries are our allies.  We have critical unmet infrastructure, healthcare, and education needs.  Let's get the priorities straight.

[autumn08]

Globalization with our inequitable free trade policies combined with excess foreign workers.  So fewer jobs are available, particularly lower skilled jobs, with an abundance of people willing to work at slave wages while they send money out of the country.  So:
- An imbalance in foreign trade
- the loss of our manufacturing base as corporations move jobs to other countries.
- Illegal immigration
- H2B visas
- H1B visas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If A is better at producing X and Y (absolute advantage), than B is, trade is still beneficial for both because A's opportunity cost for producing X over Y, or Y over X is higher than B's (comparative advantage).

If A and B specialize in producing the goods for which they have a comparative advantage, total production rises and both are better off.

If A and B trade, they are doing so because both are gaining from trade.

In theory free trade is a net positive, so why do you think we should restrict free trade? Are you in favor of tariffs and/or quotas?