Susan's Place Transgender Resources

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?

1.  Bernie Sanders
2. Because he is the only one that appears to possess any degree of personal humility and integrity.
3. Any candidate with an R after their name.
4. Because every single one of them is preaching Christian Dominionism which I consider antithetical to everything this country stands for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Donald Trump

2. We need a business man not a socialist to help jump start our country. Socialism does not belong in the USA, social economics is a failed science.

I've watched our country falling apart, Muslims in America have more rights now.


Mod Edit- Sarcastic statements are against TOS 5

Thank you both for responding!  :)

Very interesting. It is difficult to conceive on two responses more diametrically opposed.

I won't answer my questions, and will instead try to stoke conversation. Please do not attack each other, so we can keep this thread alive.

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Very interesting. It is difficult to conceive on two responses more diametrically opposed.

LOL,  that is the understatement of the week!  My flamethrower is all out of gas so no worries from this side.  :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Deborah on January 06, 2016, 08:09:16 AM
1.  Bernie Sanders
2. Because he is the only one that appears to possess any degree of personal humility and integrity.
3. Any candidate with an R after their name.
4. Because every single one of them is preaching Christian Dominionism which I consider antithetical to everything this country stands for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think Bernie Sanders' domestic proposal are prudent, given our deficit and aging population?

Also, how do you think Bernie Sanders' would react to the Syrian Civil War?

Definitely Mr. Sanders because he is what this country needs. He cares about the youth and realizes that we are the future and if something isn't done then we won't have a future.

Donald Trump because his campaign is nothing but racism and sexism. His views on Hispanics, Muslim's, and blacks is just disgusting. We have come too far to push ourselves back 50 years and bring back such heavy racism. Plus I'd rather not vote for someone who has been compared to Hitler multiple times. His points may be good but it means nothing if he only cares about white people. A president runs the entire country and supports everyone not just one group

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Quote from: cheryl reeves on January 06, 2016, 08:56:51 AM
1. Donald Trump

2. We need a business man not a socialist to help jump start our country. Socialism does not belong in the USA, social economics is a failed science.

I've watched our country falling apart, Muslims in America have more rights now, if you want sharia law go to Saudi Arabia and see how that works.

The non partisan tax foundation estimates that Donald Trump's tax proposal would increase the deficit by the highest amount, of any republican candidate's proposal. Do you think this increase in the deficit warrants the redistribution of wealth, given the country's rising inequality?

Also, which rights have Muslims received more of?

Quote from: haeden on January 06, 2016, 09:38:15 AM
Definitely Mr. Sanders because he is what this country needs. He cares about the youth and realizes that we are the future and if something isn't done then we won't have a future.

Donald Trump because his campaign is nothing but racism and sexism. His views on Hispanics, Muslim's, and blacks is just disgusting. We have come too far to push ourselves back 50 years and bring back such heavy racism. Plus I'd rather not vote for someone who has been compared to Hitler multiple times. His points may be good but it means nothing if he only cares about white people. A president runs the entire country and supports everyone not just one group

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Similar question to you Haeden, that I gave Deborah. Do you think the country should commit itself to paying for college tuition, when we are going to have an increasing commitment to social security?

I have honestly not been following his policies very closely as I am waiting until after the conventions to invest any serious mental energy into it.  However, what we are doing now isn't working and I don't believe a single thing any Republican says as without fail they always deliver the opposite of what they promise.  So, right now I just want honesty and integrity.

The Syrian Civil war is complex and I'll be the first to say that the current Middle East policies are a mess.  I believe that due to the nature of Islamic Extremism, it's basis in religion, and its support by large segments of the population, that the only solution for any semblance of stability is what existed before.  That is strongmen governments willing and able to ruthlessly suppress them.  Obama has disrupted that and unleashed hell,  Bush disrupted it before him and unleashed hell, And so on all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

In effect, we have created the environment that fosters the extremism with our foolish adventures to introduce democracy into a place and culture without the sociological basis for it to work.

So, what to do now?  There are only two solutions possible in my view.  One is admitting our error, withdrawing all Military deployments in the region, and letting them fight it out.  If the strongmen reassert control stability will return at the cost of ruthless governments.  If the Jihadists win we have a bigger problem than now that will continue to fester and spread worldwide.

The other option is to unleash the full capability of our forces on the Islamists to suppress them in short order.  We do possess this capability but it will be very destructive and very lethal.  Lots of people will die and it will all be televised.  Americans have neither the stomach nor will for this type of intervention.  It would also require reinstalling ruthless puppet dictators to continue imposing our will.

What we will probably do, and this applies to all candidates, is just more of the same.  That is just enough force to maintain America's illusion that we are doing something for the children while having no decisive or lasting effect.

Hopefully, Bernie Sanders will give up the failed crusade to recast the entire world in our image even if he does continue these low level interventions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I mean we pay for other things that never get done like roads. I just don't think in a society that is all about higher education and bettering ones self that we pay for college. Honestly the taxes wouldn't be that much given how many people pay taxes now. The one percent like Trump wouldn't even notice it! College is essential for a lot of jobs but my generation can't afford college and to live. I have so many friends with loans out 16+ credit hours and two jobs. Just killing themselves trying to survive and reach their dreams

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

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

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
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?

(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.

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...

Quote from: Yukari-sensei on January 06, 2016, 06:59:04 PM
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.

Nurnberg comes to mind when I watch him.  It's complete with the mindless adoration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Bernie Sanders

2. He seems to actually care about the people and their equality instead of just the presidential seat. He also speaks honestly and has never swayed from his political views.

3. My least likely vote is Trump, but I'm honestly not any more likely to vote for any of the GOP candidates.

4. They do not have my best interests in mind. Every one of them has taken a position of hate against not only me, but also anyone who is not like them in this country. We will be set back many years.

5. I'm not here to debate this. I've done that enough and I have a headache. I'm just sharing my views since the topic is here.

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.

  Unknown at this time. I like Trump's candor, but he needs a lot of tact.

  Not: Anybody named Bush or Clinton.
  No dynasties here.

Joelene

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.

 :)

Quote from: stephaniec on January 06, 2016, 11:28:02 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: itsApril on January 06, 2016, 03:46:43 PM
(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.

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 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.

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.

Quote from: stephaniec

QuoteQuote 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.

Quote from: Tysilio on January 06, 2016, 11:32:31 PM
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.

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

Quote from: stephaniec on January 07, 2016, 05:25:44 PM
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.

Quote from: Yukari-sensei on January 06, 2016, 06:59:04 PM
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?

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

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
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

Quote from: Tysilio on January 06, 2016, 08:24:35 PM
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?

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 06, 2016, 10:22:10 PM
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?

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.

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.

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

Quote from: autumn08What 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.)

Quote from: autumn08 on January 07, 2016, 07:28:10 PM
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.

Quote from: Deborah on January 07, 2016, 06:46:38 PM
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?

Yes, I studied economics in college.  It sounds great in theory but in practice you get exactly what Ross Perot predicted.

Yes, I am in favor of tariffs to remove the incentive for corporations to move business out of the country.

All the free trade and competitive advantage in the world means absolutely nothing if people in this country have no jobs and no money to buy all those foreign made goods.

The only people benefitting are the corporation owners and their lackeys in congress.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The town I live in is a good example of what free trade has done.  15 years ago this was a big manufacturing center with lots of jobs.  Now it's all gone.  Nothing is left.  For those who retired, their pensions left with the factories.  People worked their whole lives and are left with pensions of $15 a month.  So what jobs came to take their place, as promised by free trade.  The answer is nothing came.  So what do we expect people to do.  Remember, lots of people are perfectly able to work those jobs but are never going to be computer programmers or robot fixers or IT professional or all those other things that are supposed to replace the destroyed manufacturing base.  Not that any of those things came anyway as we outsource them too.  So what's left for Americans?  Fast food workers and picking up trash on the side of the road for a minimum wage that leaves their families starving.  That's the fruits of free trade.  So, why should we expect it to work next year when it had failed every other past year.  That's the definition of idiocy, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. 

No more voting for the idiots that can't seem to grasp that elementary concept.  So, if it takes socialism to get people working again then socialism it will be.  Just no more of this Republican Randian love fest that has destroyed the middle class and only enriched those who already had money along with their political sycophants.

Power to the people. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Deborah on January 07, 2016, 08:31:36 PM
Power to the people. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSmvSi6BWQk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSmvSi6BWQk)

Thanks for that.  It was nice. :-)

This is what I was thinking when I wrote that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RtvlBS4PMF0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
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?

1). None

2). They are all bought and paid for by billionaires who don't give a rats behind about any of us or what anyone thinks trans or not. Don't be fooled by coddling language, Sanders and/or Clinton would throw trans people under the bus if there was a buck in it for them. Sanders has been in office for a long time. ENDA has come up before, go see for yourself how he voted.

3). Hillary Clinton

4). She is a dishonest and untrustworthy woman. Those are the anti-characteristics of someone I would want as a president, not the resume of one.

 :)

Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 07, 2016, 09:21:45 PM
They are all bought and paid for by billionaires who don't give a rats behind about any of us or what anyone thinks trans or not. Don't be fooled by coddling language, Sanders and/or Clinton would throw trans people under the bus if there was a buck in it for them. Sanders has been in office for a long time. ENDA has come up before, go see for yourself how he voted.

Your challenge is accepted!

Sanders voted yes on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (protection against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) in 2009.

Sanders voted yes to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2013.

Sanders voted no when Republicans proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage in both 2004 and 2006.

Sanders voted no when Republicans sought to ban adoption by same-sex couples in the District of Columbia in 1999.

Sanders signed on as a co-sponsor to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment (proposal to Constitutionally ban discrimination by sex) in 2007.

Sanders signed on as a co-sponsor for the Student Non-Discrimination Act (proposal to prohibit discrimination in educational programs due to sexual orientation or gender identity) in 2013.

Sanders voted no on the Defense of Marriage Act (prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages, ultimately overturned by Supreme Court) in 1996.

Sanders rated as having 93% voting record by the American Civil Liberties Union, indicating favorable attitude towards Civil Rights.

Sanders rated as having 100% voting record by the Human Rights Campaign, indicating favorable attitude towards gay and lesbian rights.

I understand your skepticism about politicians.  But this is his record.  I'll take him!

Quote from: itsApril on January 07, 2016, 10:19:25 PM
Your challenge is accepted!

Sanders voted yes on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (protection against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) in 2009.

Sanders voted yes to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act in 2013.

Sanders voted no when Republicans proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage in both 2004 and 2006.

Sanders voted no when Republicans sought to ban adoption by same-sex couples in the District of Columbia in 1999.

Sanders signed on as a co-sponsor to reintroduce the Equal Rights Amendment (proposal to Constitutionally ban discrimination by sex) in 2007.

Sanders signed on as a co-sponsor for the Student Non-Discrimination Act (proposal to prohibit discrimination in educational programs due to sexual orientation or gender identity) in 2013.

Sanders voted no on the Defense of Marriage Act (prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages, ultimately overturned by Supreme Court) in 1996.

Sanders rated as having 93% voting record by the American Civil Liberties Union, indicating favorable attitude towards Civil Rights.

Sanders rated as having 100% voting record by the Human Rights Campaign, indicating favorable attitude towards gay and lesbian rights.

I understand your skepticism about politicians.  But this is his record.  I'll take him!

Human rights campaign is nonsense. I worked at a company that boasted about their perfect record. When I talked to management about my coming out, I was terminated. I place no value in what those guys say and I trusted those ratings.

Some of the stuff you mention are non-starters. Don't confuse a pandering vote to something that matters. Congress loves playing games all the time so they can run attack ads. Sanders has been in office a long long time. He has had plenty of opportunity and what does he have to show for it? Nothing. Same thing as if he gets elected. The billionaires and moneyed interests are not going to let him do anything. Neither will congress.

Don't be so easily swayed by hero worship of politicians, they would sell us down the river for a buck.

 :)

If you all will declare me as supreme dictator for life I promise to fix everything.  World peace will immediately dawn and the sun will shine 24 hours a day.  Everyone will win the lottery.  I will eliminate all taxes and everything will be free.  Really!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sounds good

Quote from: Tysilio on January 07, 2016, 07:45:27 PM
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 (http://www.salon.com/2009/10/01/cole_12/) 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.)

Arguments Against Iran Not Being a Threat

1. Iran's support for terrorist organizations; Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.

2. Iran's support for Assad, which fuels Sunni animosity and thus empowers ISIS. 

3. Iran's support for Iraqi Shiite Militias, which have committed egregious human rights abuses, killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and exacerbate sectarian tensions.

4. Iranian Revolutionary Guard's terrorist acts in the Middle East and Africa, and encroachment into Latin America.

5. Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors in the Parchin Military Site, which shows signs that nuclear bomb triggers could have been tested.

6. Iran's development of a heavy water reactor in Arak, rather than a light water reactor.

7. Iran's continued develop of its ballistic missile program, in violation of the JCPOA.

8. In 2010, the IAEA reported that it believes Iran may be developing a nuclear warhead for a missile.

9. In 2011, the IAEA reported it has serious concerns and credible information that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.

10. In 2012, the United Nations reported that Iran has increased its production of high grade enriched uranium, and has re-landscaped the Parchin Military Site, in an apparent effort to hamper U.N. inquiry.

Quote from: Deborah on January 09, 2016, 12:50:34 AM
If you all will declare me as supreme dictator for life I promise to fix everything.  World peace will immediately dawn and the sun will shine 24 hours a day.  Everyone will win the lottery.  I will eliminate all taxes and everything will be free.  Really!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

Quote from: autumn08 on January 09, 2016, 06:25:40 AM
Arguments Against Iran Not Being a Threat

3. Iran's support for Iraqi Shiite Militias, which have committed egregious human rights abuses, killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and exacerbate sectarian tensions.

The US, which didn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shia, invaded Iraq. The Bush administration ordered the occupation forces to disband the (Sunni-led) Iraqi Army, and send them home with their weapons. Meanwhile, the Shi'ites, who didn't have access to military-grade weapons relied on Iran to provide them with a means to defend themselves from Sunnis and the common enemy, us.

It would be more appropriate to blame the English and French for drawing arbitrary lines on a map, creating countries without considering culture and religion. That is the root of turmoil in the Middle East. I have no answer for that, but blaming one country or another isn't a solution.

For the record, Iran is the one country in the Middle East that could have been a strong ally for Western countries if not for Eisenhower's CIA who overthrew a democratically elected, left-leaning government and installed a dictatorial Shah.

The only country over there that really has legitimate borders is Iran.  As stated above, all the rest are recent and arbitrary.  So, that begs the question, why does the USA even have an interest in maintaining those borders.  The answer I suspect is simply maintaining a stable oil export from the Middle East to us but primarily to our allies in Europe.

The other part of the answer is in Israel which many Americans will defend in any circumstance in their efforts to bring about the Eschaton.  They are nuts.  However, I think it does benefit our interests to defend Israel as the only relatively reliable ally we have in the region.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: autumn08Arguments Against Iran Not Being a Threat

Your list doesn't hold up very well against even a cursory examination.

Diane makes an excellent point about British and French meddling in the Middle East having, in a broad sense, led directly to the current state of affairs in there. The worst of this meddling took place from the last years of WWI to about 1922, and was based on an astonishing level of ignorance of the region and its people. (For an excellent account of this, read A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin.)

The reality behind the Iranian activities you mention in your points is that much of the current turmoil in the Middle East is essentially religious warfare between two branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite; Iran is basically a Shiite theocracy, and as such supports other Shiite countries and movements. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, that country was run by its Sunni minority, which invaded Iran in 1980, causing a war which lasted for 8 years. When the US invaded Iraq and overthrew its government (destroying its infrastructure and civil society in the process), the remnants of the (Sunni-led) Iraqi army went on to form the core of ISIS.

Reasonably enough, in light of that history, Iran views the political/military aspects of Sunni Islam as a threat, hence its support of Shiite factions elsewhere in the Middle East. Also reasonably enough, Iran feels threatened by the US, which has invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked 14 Muslim countries since 1980. Its diplomatic and other activities in Latin America are directed at reducing US influence, and at strengthening other countries which don't accept US regional hegemony.

As to the claims of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at this point they've been fairly well refuted.The desire of the IAEA to save face following that refutation is among the reasons a nuclear agreement was signed this summer by Iran and the P5+1 nations.

Iran is a sovereign nation, with the right, guaranteed by the United Nations charter, to defend itself. There's support for the defensive nature of its actions in the fact that Iran has not invaded another country for over 200 years. Note that this record is in stark contrast to that of the US, which has invaded roughly 50 countries just in the years since the end of WWII. (You'll find a list here.)

@Tysilio: Nicely done.

@Autumn08: Are you trying to prompt a discussion of the Obama administration foreign policy? Here's my take:

I believe the focus of President Obama's foreign policy throughout his administration has been to rectify errors made over the last 50+ years. The first example is attempting to close the illegal, immoral prison at Guantanamo Bay. Doing so seems to require congressional action, Republicans have blocked every attempt. The US has high-quality Super-Max prisons that are as secure as the one at Guantanamo. What are Republicans afraid of? I predict, after the November election, the president will come up with an executive action that will transfer the remaining prisoners to Super-Max facilities in the US.

My next example is Cuba. Except while at war (:::cough::: Vietnam) the US had diplomatic relations with communist countries, even the Soviet Union and eventually China. The reason the hand of diplomacy has never been extended to Cuba is because of a relatively small band of Cuban exiles who somehow were granted the power to control the foreign policy of the United States of America. Why in the hell would we cede that power to them? They expected a successful US invasion to return the private property the Revolución took from them. Well, that was never going to happen, especially after the failure of the Bay of Pigs. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, yet the US didn't have diplomatic relations with the country 90 miles away until last year when the Obama administration reached out to get it done. Finally!

Number three: The Cheney-Bush administration invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for no good reason. The facts have been well-documented. The Obama administration is doing its best to disentangle from the Middle East. There is no reason the US can't ween itself from oil, which was the root reason for the Iraq invasion. There are plenty of alternatives; it will only take the national will to implement them.

Finally, number four: Iran. As previously discussed, American meddling in the affairs of a foreign country in the 1950s has done nothing but cause problems since. Obama, and other western European leaders are trying to change perceptions on both sides of the divide. Then Saudi Arabia executed a Shi'ite cleric. We're probably not back to square one, but previously agreed upon issues may have backslid.

I expect that I'll vote for a candidate that will continue to rectify 50+ years of errors that have caused the problems we're still dealing with today. Good luck to her/him. There is still much to do.

 :)

Yesterday a Muslim woman was removed from a Trump rally simply for standing up while wearing a hijab.  She had said absolutely nothing.  People in the crowd were yelling out pretty nasty things.

How can anyone of good conscience vote for this?  Cannot everyone see the parallels?  This has happened before in history not so long ago and it did not turn out well at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In new ad, Clinton casts herself as the best defense against a GOP president

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-defense-ad/index.html

CNN/By Dan Merica, CNNUpdated 6:59 PM ET, Sat January 9, 2016

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 09, 2016, 01:45:05 PM
@Autumn08: Are you trying to prompt a discussion of the Obama administration foreign policy? Here's my take:

My intention was for individuals to respond to my initial post and I would then facilitate conversation on various domestic and foreign policy issues. It seems there is too much of a consensus at the moment though (except for Stephanie. :)), and Iran has sparked the most interest, but I still invite everyone to respond to my initial post.

Also, I would be happy to discuss Guantanamo, Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'll first see where the Iran conversation goes.

Quote from: Tysilio on January 09, 2016, 11:54:47 AM
Your list doesn't hold up very well against even a cursory examination.

Diane makes an excellent point about British and French meddling in the Middle East having, in a broad sense, led directly to the current state of affairs in there. The worst of this meddling took place from the last years of WWI to about 1922, and was based on an astonishing level of ignorance of the region and its people. (For an excellent account of this, read A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin.)

The reality behind the Iranian activities you mention in your points is that much of the current turmoil in the Middle East is essentially religious warfare between two branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite; Iran is basically a Shiite theocracy, and as such supports other Shiite countries and movements. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, that country was run by its Sunni minority, which invaded Iran in 1980, causing a war which lasted for 8 years. When the US invaded Iraq and overthrew its government (destroying its infrastructure and civil society in the process), the remnants of the (Sunni-led) Iraqi army went on to form the core of ISIS.

Reasonably enough, in light of that history, Iran views the political/military aspects of Sunni Islam as a threat, hence its support of Shiite factions elsewhere in the Middle East. Also reasonably enough, Iran feels threatened by the US, which has invaded, bombed, or otherwise attacked 14 Muslim countries (https://theintercept.com/2014/11/06/many-countries-islamic-world-u-s-bombed-occupied-since-1980/) since 1980. Its diplomatic and other activities in Latin America are directed at reducing US influence, and at strengthening other countries which don't accept US regional hegemony.

As to the claims of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at this point they've been fairly well refuted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/saving-face-on-iran_b_8724878.html).The desire of the IAEA to save face following that refutation is among the reasons a nuclear agreement was signed this summer by Iran and the P5+1 nations.

Iran is a sovereign nation, with the right, guaranteed by the United Nations charter, to defend itself. There's support for the defensive nature of its actions in the fact that Iran has not invaded another country for over 200 years. Note that this record is in stark contrast to that of the US, which has invaded roughly 50 countries just in the years since the end of WWII. (You'll find a list here (http://www.countercurrents.org/polya050713.htm).)

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 09, 2016, 10:22:17 AM
The US, which didn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shia, invaded Iraq. Vice President Cheney and President Bush disbanded the (Sunni-led) Iraqi Army and sent them home with their weapons. Meanwhile, the Shi'ites, who didn't have access to military-grade weapons relied on Iran to provide them with a means to defend themselves from Sunnis and the common enemy, us.

It would be more appropriate to blame the English and French for drawing arbitrary lines on a map, creating countries without considering culture and religion. That is the root of turmoil in the Middle East. I have no answer for that, but blaming one country or another isn't a solution.

For the record, Iran is the one country in the Middle East that could have been a strong ally for Western countries if not for Eisenhower's CIA who overthrew a democratically elected, left-leaning government and installed a dictatorial Shah.

I think I did a poor job conveying the point I was making with my list. I was not debating the impetus, or justifiability of Iran's actions, but rather Tysilio's proposition that "Iran is not a threat." Iran continues to support and partake in terrorism, and incite sectarian animosity. These actions combined with its nuclear program and ballistic missile program, I contend make Iran a threat.

As to the justifiability of Iran's actions, I think the terrorist actions of Iran and its proxies, and their contribution to sectarianism, speak for themselves. I contend they are indefensible. Iran's actions are not equivalent to U.S. actions, but even if they were equivalent, they should viewed irrespective of U.S. actions, as they are primarily malevolent and counterproductive.

As to Scott Ritter's article, on December 15, 2015, the IAEA concluded that Iran conducted nuclear weapons-related research until 2009, but this conclusion is contingent on samples that Iran collected from the Parchin Military Site (which Iran had repeatedly denied access to), before the IAEA arrived. Also, when inspectors arrived there was evidence of recent renovations, and there no equipment inside the building. This information, combined with Iran's decision to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, I contend gives credence to skepticism of Iran's nuclear program.

Quote from: diane 2606 on January 10, 2016, 12:15:38 AM
Who edits posts here? Someone changed what I wrote. Is this what happens at Susan's? It's inappropriate.

I have sent you a pm re the post change. I shall also remind people of the Terms of Service

2. Any attempts to stage protests, dispute the site policies, the TOS/rules, or actions of the staff; in the public areas of this site will not be tolerated and will result in your removal. If you have any issues, contact Susan by email, or forum private message, and not bring these types of issues into the public spaces on this website. For the proper way to handle problems of this nature see item #20 below.

3. Posting is a privilege, not a right. We have the inherent right to block access to our services to anyone for any reason. We also have the right to disable or remove from any account features and/or functionality of this website, and to edit or remove any posting from any forum for any reason.

1. Rand Paul
Pretty simply he is the closest to a libertarian as they get . I know that he will govern by the constitution and up hold the laws of the land.
2.  Hillary
I believe it has been proving time and time against that she is dishonest and not trust worthy enough to hold the seat as the president of the United States.

Quote from: Britney79 on January 11, 2016, 12:30:08 PM
1. Rand Paul
Pretty simply he is the closest to a libertarian as they get . I know that he will govern by the constitution and up hold the laws of the land.
2.  Hillary
I believe it has been proving time and time against that she is dishonest and not trust worthy enough to hold the seat as the president of the United States.

Even though exports constitute only 13 percent of U.S. GDP, many fear that the dramatic declines in China's stock market and currency could portend to a global recession. If this were to happen, the U.S. Federal Reserve would have a limited ability to mitigate the losses to demand, as interest rates are near zero.

In this type of situation, fiscal policy could still mitigate the losses to demand, but would President Rand Paul use his veto, if somehow a stimulus bill were to be passed by Congress? If so, what do you think would be the more appropriate response?

The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

Quote from: Britney79 on January 12, 2016, 11:03:54 AM
The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

I'm going to have to admit that the gold standard was one of several deal-breakers Ron had with me, and it's high on the list of deal-breakers with Rand.  As best I can make out, current U.S. M2 is ~$12.3 trillion.  At current market prices, the Treasury says it has ~$300-450 billion in gold, depending on which numbers you believe.  The entire world's supply of gold is worth a little under $10 trillion.  In round numbers, that means there's not enough gold mined in all the world since the dawn of civilization just to back the current U.S. money supply, never mind pay off any debts.  And that assumes none is used as jewelry, somebody else's bullion, or for industrial uses.

Now, I don't mind somebody making the argument that fiat currency has been part of how we created this problem.  It's a fair argument and some of the facts do support it.  I do wonder about the math of suggesting that going back on the gold standard is a viable solution at this point, though.   

           

Not to devolve this into a gold bug conversation I think that going back to the gold standard would be quite a big conversion not like flicking a switch. Debt based currency as we have here is a severe issue, we are being taxed via inflation. It's crippling the middle class, while the upper class (think 1%ers) are generally immune as they are benefitting since they have created the rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote from: Britney79 on January 12, 2016, 11:03:54 AM
The united States is in a financial crisis currently due to failed policies of not only Obama but president's dating back to Richard Nixon. If we want to fix out economy currently stimulus packages would not be the answer. We can not as a nation continue to print money we don't have. First we need to get rid of the federal reserve bank, that is the root of most of our problems. We need to tie the dollar to the gold standard as it was before 1975. Abolish the IRS and have a flat tax on goods and services. This would allow us to lower the tax on businesses, so that we could again begin to manufacture our own goods instead of shipping the jobs overseas. That being said that wouldn't cure the national debt. Eventually the debt will burst when we are unable to pay back out liabilities. Which may need to occur to solve our financial crisis. So, to answer your question I would hope Rand would veto any stimulus package.

Quote from: ImSuziG on January 12, 2016, 05:24:40 PM
Not to devolve this into a gold bug conversation I think that going back to the gold standard would be quite a big conversion not like flicking a switch. Debt based currency as we have here is a severe issue, we are being taxed via inflation. It's crippling the middle class, while the upper class (think 1%ers) are generally immune as they are benefitting since they have created the rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How would you describe Austrian Business Cycle Theory, or if you prefer to approach the subject from a different perspective, what is your critique of the Federal Reserve?

1. Donald Trump

2. He has stated he wants to amend the Civil Rights Act to protect LGB persons. While, he didn't mention the T, I take that as a sign he is somewhat accepting while not also being completely wrong on immigration, taxation, and the second amendment (Sanders, Clinton).

3. A Tie between Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.

4. Do I really need to give a reason? They are both zealots who would have all LGBT persons imprisoned or worse if they could get the votes in Congress.

Quote from: lisarenee on January 15, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
1. Donald Trump

2. He has stated he wants to amend the Civil Rights Act to protect LGB persons. While, he didn't mention the T, I take that as a sign he is somewhat accepting while not also being completely wrong on immigration, taxation, and the second amendment (Sanders, Clinton).

I would like to remind you that he is at best very unclear about anything LGBT. He has made transphobic statements and he is against same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how that fits in with his pro-civil rights statements. It conflicts too much for me to even consider him.

Quote from: lisarenee on January 15, 2016, 11:46:35 PM
1. Donald Trump

. . .

3. A Tie between Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.

Do you think Trump is different from Huckabee and Cruz?  Think again:

http://www.capitolbeatok.com/reports/trump-endorses-protect-life-and-marriage-marriage-oklahoma-drive

CapitolBeatOK Staff Report
Published: 13-Jan-2016

EDMOND, Oklahoma -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, has endorsed an Oklahoma-based petition in what state allies said was his "first hard-line conservative stand on abortion and same sex marriage." Trump made the announcement, via email, to the group Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma.

"I think Donald Trump saw the rationale behind our movement and agreed with the logic," says Pastor Paul Blair, President of Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma.

"The Supreme Court egregiously overstepped its authority with both Roe v Wade and the Obergefell decision which mandates that states must approve marriage licenses for anyone and everyone. I think Trump agrees we can not allow the Supreme Court to grant itself powers that go vastly beyond the authority clearly spelled out in the Constitution."

In an email to Protect Life and Marriage Oklahoma, Blair said Donald Trump expressed both his support for the group's online petition and the principles behind it, Blair said.

Trump said in his communication: "I support the thousands of Oklahomans who are standing up and protecting life and marriage in their state."

1. Bernie Sanders

2. He is honest and authentic. An "honest politician" is an oxymoron,yes, but it applies to him. Even better, his proposals, once you understand them, actually make sense.  And this is coming from someone that considers herself to be a fiscally conservative Independant, that has voted for "R"s for most of my life, has an MBA, and works in the treasury of one of the biggest companies in the world. I don't just like Bernie "because I want free stuff".  His proposals won't help me, except in the sense that they help the entire country.

3. HRC, Trump, Cruz, or any of the other "R"s

4. HRC and Trump want to be president for their own personal power trips.  They will lie, cheat, and flip-flop on any issue if they think it will get them elected  (HRC: against marriage equality, now for it; for the TPP, now against it) (Trump: "I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering." -- yeah, whatever, donald.  It CLEARLY never happened).  Trump's racist, misogynist, narcissistic rantings are simply unbelievable. 

Cruz and the other "R"s are probably more honest than HRC and Trump, but what they want to do to this country, and the world, is just down right scary. Every one of them one-ups the other on wanting to send our kids to war in the Middle-East.  Because, you know, it worked so well when bush did it. And, BTW, spent $3 trillion TRILLION(!) dollars of our money in the process.

I don't know they all have there problems

Lyndsey

1. Bernie Sanders
2. Because I know he will work and fight to change and put his policies in place while other candidates don't have this type of record that he has.
3. Huckabee, trump, or Carson.
4. They all do not appreciate LTBTQIA Americans and openly joke about things that should not be joked about. Carson is also anti choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can I just say that, as someone new to this forum I am remarkably impressed by how civil and respectful this thread is, considering opinions are diametrically opposed? Good on everyone *claps*

For myself, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if he is able to make it to the primaries *fingers crossed*

He has a sterling record of holding to his opinions, which he has been saying for decades and is something that can be difficult to find among candidates. He's also in support of LGBT rights (and has been since at least 1983) which applies to both myself, my fiancee, and a lot of my friends so that's a no-brainer.

Hillary Clinton is a...decent second choice.

For all the financial inequality we have going on in the United States right now I am simply stunned that there is support for a 1% businessman like Trump who has no previous experience as a politician.

Among the other Republicans, Jeb Bush seems the most benign although I have notable concerns.

So basically, I'm feelin' the Bern  8)

 :)

Quote from: autumn08 on January 06, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
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?

1) Hillary Clinton

2) Someone can argue that even though tax and spending cuts will exacerbate inequality, growth should be prioritized, but since the unemployment rate is already low, and because wages have not been rising with productivity since 1979, tax cuts, as they theoretically should, will not increase wage growth. Thus, I think a larger focus on upward mobility and equality, rather than growth would have greater social utility.

Why not Bernie Sanders? As callous as the argument would be, if Russian aggression and Middle Eastern turmoil remained regional issues, you could argue against increased U.S. involvement. These issues are metastasizing though, so the overall cost of doing less, will be greater than the overall cost of doing more.

3) Donald Trump

4) He is a racist and a chauvinist, but he is also dishonest, so it is difficult to assess how fascistic he really is. Even if he does not intend to pursue some of his most perverse ideas though, in order to keep his legitimacy, he will need to provide the more hateful parts of his constituency with some substance.

Quote from: WallabyWallop on January 24, 2016, 01:34:12 PM
Can I just say that, as someone new to this forum I am remarkably impressed by how civil and respectful this thread is, considering opinions are diametrically opposed? Good on everyone *claps*

For myself, I will be voting for Bernie Sanders if he is able to make it to the primaries *fingers crossed*

He has a sterling record of holding to his opinions, which he has been saying for decades and is something that can be difficult to find among candidates. He's also in support of LGBT rights (and has been since at least 1983) which applies to both myself, my fiancee, and a lot of my friends so that's a no-brainer.

Hillary Clinton is a...decent second choice.

For all the financial inequality we have going on in the United States right now I am simply stunned that there is support for a 1% businessman like Trump who has no previous experience as a politician.

Among the other Republicans, Jeb Bush seems the most benign although I have notable concerns.

So basically, I'm feelin' the Bern  8)

I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.  :laugh: 

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team.  :)

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on January 25, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.  :laugh: 

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team.  :)

Hugs, Devlyn

Oh, well in that case go mods  :laugh:

I always appreciate a well-moderated forum. Which it apparently is here since I clearly didn't notice  :D

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on January 25, 2016, 02:41:57 PM
I just want to let you and everyone else know that the Moderators are the reason everything looks so calm and peaceful here. In actuality, the forum records show that this thread has seen moderation five times........so far.  :laugh: 

So give a shout out to the busiest bunch of under appreciated volunteers you ever met: The Mod team.  :)

Hugs, Devlyn

Thank you Mod team!  :)

Thank you. Now as far as the question at hand I really don't know that I want any candidate that is running now actually.  will wait tell it gets closer and take a closer look at everyone then. Hugs
Mariah

Quote from: autumn08 on January 25, 2016, 09:59:56 PM
Thank you Mod team!  :)

1) For which candidate are you voting?

Clinton.
2) Why?

I like Bernie, and I think his politics align more closely with mine than Hillary's, but he's ultimately an unrealistic choice in my opinion. He simply doesn't have the political currency necessary to implement his (admittedly good) plans. Hillary is more centrist, which means she has more sway to get things done.

In the choice between cynical practicality and optimistic idealism, I come down squarely in the practical camp.

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

Pick a Republican, any Republican.

4) Why?

Too many reasons to count. Republicans are an absolute nightmare on domestic social policy. They want to restrict  abortions, roll back and block gay and trans rights, ramp up executions, ramp down gun control, ruin what little sex education exists in this country, and upset the place of science in policy in favor of religion. Economically their policies serve to enforce and increase a wage gap that leaves most of the wealth in the hands of a few, leaves businesses free to pollute the earth and the political system with impunity, and do nothing to help balance the scales between the patriarchal few and the varied many. Their foreign policy has degraded from TR's "Walk softly and carry a big stick" to "Hit not-Americans with sticks." Some are worse than others, but they're all bad in their own special ways.

Basically, the end of the story is that I'm a total yellow dog democrat. Put my sister's chihuahua in the democratic slot and I'll pick her over the demons on the right. At least she's cute and only pees on the floor sometimes.

I do not have a voting right for the US presidential election, but I am very interested in it, as the influence of the US is ubiquitous in the world.

I wish to have a candidate like Bernie Sanders in the next year's presidential election in my country (S. Korea), as we have had similar problems such as economic inequality and plutocracy (e.g., Samsung).

And I applaud that the US people could elect Obama as the president. That kind of revolutionary election is virtually impossible in my country, but more education and improvement of political systems will hopefully make that kind of achievement in the near future. Fortunately, young people are more smart and intelligent than aged people here.

barbie~~

The Iowa caucuses happened yesterday, with Hillary Clinton winning by only around 0.2%, and Ted Cruz beating Trump in the Republican caucuses. As much as I dislike Trump, I'm absolutely terrified of Cruz. The near tie for the Democrats doesn't mean much though, since Iowa isn't a winner take all state.

1. Bernie sanders
2. Why is very simple look at his goals for the presidency then look at his plans. He says what he believes in and his records show it. His words are not bought and never will be. He believes that health care is a right to the people and not a privilege and that pharmaceutical  company have to much power over the pricing of medication. As shown we pay in the usual double to triple the amount per pill to every other major nation.

Where as he also wants major financial reform. So people can not be bought and there words owned by such coperation. Not to mention sanders also has a much stronger history as being a champion of equality and LGBT support. Such as hosting the first pride parade in his state of Vermont and marching with  martin luther king.
3.Donald trump
OK, let get this clear not all republicans are bads. That mostly what I'm seeing in this chat board so much hate towards one group will listen up I dislike Democrat's to.


So yaaaaa..... facist tend not be good leaders.

Mod edit- Bashing is against TOS 10

Thread locked for review and cleanup.

 :police:
I know that we are very passionate about those candidates or parties we like or don't like, but bashing them will not be tolerated.Considering I have already placed a warning in this thread previously and things have changed in regards to the bashing the thread will remain locked.

Quote10. Bashing or flaming of an individual or group is not acceptable behavior on this website and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.  This includes but is not limited to:

• Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term. The same restriction applies to advocating the removal of the T from GLBT.
• Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more or less legitimate, deserving, or real than any others
• Posting any messages that engages in personal attacks and/or is actively or passively aggressive no matter the provocation.