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. 

Thanks for that.  It was nice. :-)

This is what I was thinking when I wrote that.



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 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