General US Politics

[Etrurian emperor]

On 30-7-2017 at 2:02 AM, Shoblongoo said:

The only thing Trumps "win" was a reaction to was what a god-awful candidate Hillary was in the alternative, tbh. He said nothing that resonated with a majority of voters and was deemed morally repugnant for his antics (and the media had to cover them--they were news). But was merely deemed to be the lesser of two evils by those who found Hillary's track-record of pay-to-play and changing positions on a dime and assorted scandals even more disqualifying then Trump being Trump. All we really learned this past election is that an unelectable candidate wins by running against another unelectable candidate. 

I think those that considered Trump the lesser of two evils are pretty much objectively wrong on that front. There was never anything that suggested Trump could run a country while Clinton at least held several offices with a competence that ranges somewhere from average to below average. In that she already wins out on Trump.

The biggest weaknesses of Clinton was that she lied and that she may have been corrupt but both of those things were present in Trump to an even higher degree. If Trump has no experience, zero competence, nothing to point to the existence of good faith and all of Clinton's weaknesses then how can he be the lesser evil?

[Lushen]

5 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

I think those that considered Trump the lesser of two evils are pretty much objectively wrong on that front. There was never anything that suggested Trump could run a country while Clinton at least held several offices with a competence that ranges somewhere from average to below average. In that she already wins out on Trump.

Her competence is significantly below average.  Holding several offices means jack shit when you haven't done a good job with them.  Bad experience is not a good thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-architect-of-failure/article/2605268

Edited August 1, 2017 by Lushen

[Zapp Branniglenn]

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

Her competence is significantly below average.  Holding several offices means jack shit when you haven't done a good job with them.  Bad experience is not a good thing.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-architect-of-failure/article/2605268

Not to sound like somebody who is running for office, but I'm saying it anyway. There is no such thing as "bad" experience in the field of civil service. Politicians don't envy Clinton's years of service for the sake of seniority, they envy the chance to have seen the things she's seen and spoken to all the people she had in her life. You don't learn how the world works by sitting at home and watching the news. That's why Trump abandoned his campaign promises the day after he spoke with Obama.

A good politician can make mistakes and learn from them. A bad politician has every opportunity to know something won't work before they try it anyway. What the American public fail to understand is It's not just a president we elect, it's the best and brightest they know to advise them on the right calls to make every day. That's why third party candidates can't get the job done. They have no experience serving the public where it matters, and know absolutely nobody in their line of work who can teach them how the world works. Trump has a team of lawyers, that's it. He filled every position with the same swamp he said he would drain, because they were willing to take the job. Some aren't always willing to be a lap dog though, hence the firings.

Anybody that thinks Hillary being president would still result in us talking about the president's Muslim ban, or how hundreds of government positions are still vacant, or how we're going to pay for a border wall is just an internet troll. "BUT HER EMAILS" isn't even being thrown about since nobody cares about that in the first place. Does anybody believe that trump supporters care about him using private email servers? That wouldn't even make the "daily Trump news" cycle if we got confirmation, because he does and says so much more heinous things.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Gustavos

[Lord Raven]

Also Clinton's accomplishments led to the death of Osama and her pressure on Iran lead to the Iran deal

I think the majority of politicians have a history of failure (which is natural because that's how compromise works!) but Clinton does have successes. Her foreign policy has led to plenty of issues but she has had success.

[Lushen]

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Also Clinton's accomplishments led to the death of Osama and her pressure on Iran lead to the Iran deal

What I think of when Hillary credits herself with the death of Osama Bin Laden...

Spoiler

 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Lushen

[Lord Raven]

What the fuck are you talking about? She was Secretary of State during the raid on Aboddabad.. ignoring the fact that a lot of decisions are more or less team decisions. I also didn't state she single handedly made the decision or scoped it out lol, it was part of her career in her four years as Secretary of State.

I'm also not sure why you're willing to shit on Clinton's shoddy memory here whilst at the same time defending Trump Jr.'s shoddy memory.

[Shoblongoo]

I don't want to relitigate the case against Hillary. But I think it's as foolish to disregard her reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of the right-wing echo chamber as it is to disregard Trump's reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of liberal media. Not do I think it's particularly helpful to excuse her conduct as "...well that's just how politicians act; you can say the same about any of them. She did some good things too." That's the kind of boundless cynicism that got Trump elected with every figure in the political establishment warning: this man is a national embarasment. Do not give him power, as though every figure in the political establishment holding this opinion of him was a GOOD thing. Take the lesson of 2016 to heart and do it right next time--Don't put up a candidate with a reputation for dishonesty and corruption that has to be excused or explained away. Then just expect progressives to swallow it, because--hey--it's her or the racist, sexist millionaire-coddler with the (R) next to his name.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I think it's as foolish to disregard her reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of the right-wing echo chamber as it is to disregard Trump's reputation for corruption and dishonesty as the lies of liberal media

Are you joking? One is full of exaggeration (corruption) and bullshit/conspiracy (including the Seth Rich conspiracy and the Clinton murder trail) and the other is very well documented.

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

nor do I think it's particularly helpful to excuse her conduct as "...well that's just how politicians act."

I did not do this. A public servant is beholden to their constituents, as Clinton properly was. The issue was her lack of public charisma, which is definitely a point against her. Hawkish tendencies in foreign policy is another point against her. But a public servant adapting their "viewpoints" and policies to their constituents and able to do research on those policies is how a politician is meant to act. If we're comparing to Trump again, then Trump has no consistency in viewpoints and doesn't care for constituents as was shown by his constant flip flopping during the campaign and after victory. She legit acts like how a career public servant should act, for better or for worse.

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Take the lesson of 2016 to heart and do it right next time--Don't put up a candidate with a reputation for dishonesty and corruption that has to be excused or explained away. And then just expect progressives to swallow it, because--hey--it's her or the racist, sexist guy with the (R) next to his name. When Democrats nominate a candidate that genuinely excites the progressive base--They Win. 

If I'm going to be honest, yes, I should expect progressives to swallow it. The ones with the most care about all of these issues with Clinton -- from my personal experience -- were the ones that ended up caring the least now and cared the least around a year ago. Yes, this is not universal, since there are people in this thread that care now and cared then. You also can't blame the Democrats for trying to run her, considering she was the clear front runner in mid-late 2015 that decreased against Bernie Sanders but was still overall favorable among Democrats.

It was pretty obvious she was willing to make concessions when Bernie threatened her campaign. That is generally the purpose of the primaries -- to vote with your gut so the final candidate can come out with much more moderation between the candidates. This is how a democracy is meant to work, and Trump clearly didn't give two shits about the process.

I don't support Clinton again in 2020 nor do I support a Clinton-like candidate because of the lack of charisma, but I believe that people should be willing to make concessions whenever necessary. That kind of bickering was the death of the Democratic Party whereas the Republican Party can get their voters in line. That's why I, once again, believe that the demographic that hates Clinton a lot, for the most part, is the one unwilling to make concessions while still remaining on the center or left-of-center, most likely because they aren't used to having to make concessions to that extent.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Shoblongoo]

I would remind you that Republican pundits and right wing media spent the past eight (8) years leveling every charge of corruption and scandal in the books against Obama, in an attempt to bring his reputation down to the level of a Trump or a Clinton. (with more than just a light twinge of racial overtures)

 …it was said he was born in Kenya and falsified an American birth certificate.

…it was said that his closest mentors and role models were a pastor who preached “God DAMN America! That’s in the Bible!” and a domestic terrorist responsible for bombing police stations.

…it was said he was a closet homosexual with a gay lover in Chicago.

… it was said he ran a crooked IRS that targeted his political opponents for audits.

…it was said he ran a crooked justice department that prioritized prosecuting white’s over non-whites, and refused to prosecute Democrats.

…it was said he ran a crooked EPA and energy department, using “green energy projects” to give tax payer money to his friends and donors.

…it was said he ran a crooked ATF that illegally sold guns to Mexican drug gangs.

Obama left office with a 59% approval rating and the adoration of the general public in spite of them, and has become even more popular in his post-presidency in juxtaposition against his successor.

 

By all accounts, had he been eligible to run for a 3^rd term, he would have beaten both Hillary in a primary challenge and Trump in a general election with upmost ease.

The dirt never stuck to Obama (not with anyone beyond the core right-wing audience that was willing to believe any bad thing said about the guy) because he didn’t have a pre-existing reputation for gutter politics and scandals—he was an untarnished, aspirational figure.

…whereas with Hillary…fake scandals and things that right wing media was just out-right making up with no basis in fact notwithstanding…

…you have the Whitewater Investigations

…you have the Bimbo Eruptions

…you have the mysterious disappearance of Clinton Foundation charitable funds for earthquake relief in Haiti

…you have the mixing of public and private business at the State Department under Clinton’s tenure, with Clinton in the capacity of her office soliciting donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign nationals + foreign nationals who donated to the Clinton Foundation receiving  special access to the state Department.

…you have positions reversed for seemingly no other reason than political expediency, on everything from criminal justice reform to living wage laws to Iraq, with plastic indignation at the suggestion that her position has changed. And insistence that it’s just another “right-wing smear” to suggest her stance on say—mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and locking up urban “super predators” during her husband’s presidency is just slightly off-kilter from her sudden professions of love and solidarity with BLM.   

…you have the matter of a private server blown up into a “scandal”—whatever the nature of her underlying conduct—by the sheer volume of false statements Hillary put out that she had to later go back and correct when the true facts were disclosed,  i.e.: I had this server, but I only used it for private correspondence.  Okay…yes…I used it for private correspondence and state department matters, but I never used if for classified information. Okay…yes…I used it for classified information, but I never used it for anything that was marked classified at the time and I’ve fully cooperated in disclosing all emails to investigators; they will attest that this is correct. Okay…yes…I deleted several thousand emails and didn’t turn them over to investigators…but that was just talk about my daughter’s birthday party and silly, unrelated things. Nothing relevant to the investigation. Okay…yes…some of the deleted emails I failed to turn over contained information relevant to the investigation, but…

 

 (It’s the same stupid shit Trump is doing with the Russia investigation right now; if there’s no underlying misconduct then there is no need for the lies and the cover-up. You put all your cards on the table and get ahead of the story; you don’t erode your credibility by putting out false statement after false statement that is going to inevitably be proven false with the slow-drip from the investigation)

…And that wasn’t shit that right-wing media made up. That happened.

Because that happened, Hillary did not have the reputation for honesty and good character to rise above the fake shit, the way Obama did.

There’s an old saying: shit sticks to a pig.

And even without the fake scandals, there were a fair number of voters who would not have voted for Hillary under any circumstance purely because of the things she’s actually said and done.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t say: “Donald Trump is the worst. There’s never been a candidate this rude and crude. There’s never been a candidate who knows this little about government or public policy. There’s never been a candidate this dirty in his business dealings. This is the worst candidate ever to be nominated for president of the United States—he shouldn’t even be anywhere near the fucking thing.”

Then also say: “But the candidate that lost to him was a good candidate! It was just the right-wing smear machine. It was just conspiracy theories and fake scandals. It was just Russian interference. Hillary wasn’t a bad nominee.”  

No…that’s not how it works…
 
A moment of introspection is needed here. Democrats have to take ownership of the candidate they put up.

Because Trump is a skunk. And when you get into a shit-fight with a skunk, the skunk wins.

They will lose again in 2020 if they don’t put up an aspirational figure who can rise above Trump’s gutter politics, instead of going tit-for-tat on who has the less disqualifying lies and scandals.    

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Lushen]

14 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

What the fuck are you talking about? She was Secretary of State during the raid on Aboddabad.. ignoring the fact that a lot of decisions are more or less team decisions. I also didn't state she single handedly made the decision or scoped it out lol, it was part of her career in her four years as Secretary of State.

I'm also not sure why you're willing to shit on Clinton's shoddy memory here whilst at the same time defending Trump Jr.'s shoddy memory.

14 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

<snip>

So...you can't defend Clinton without criticizing Trump who has nothing to do with my argument that Clinton would have been a horrible candidate?  As I've said multiple times, I'm not defending Trump, I would have preferred Rubio, Carson, and Kasich.  If the democrats had a decent (not good, just decent) presidential candidate I may have voted democrat this year.  They just didn't, which is what I was saying.  Just because we have a bad president doesn't mean we could have had a good one if Hillary was in office.  As other have said, who knows what she would have done, she changes her views on things to whatever gets her elected.  

As for her and the raid, is everyone that was in the gov't at the time of the raid responsible for Osama's death?  I hate it when Obama and Clinton get credit or the raid, someone else found the targets location, someone else organized the raid, someone else carried out the raid.  Obama and Clinton...what?  Approved it?  Who the fuck wouldn't?  Why do they get more praise then our military, whoever organized it (I don't even know who that was), and our intelligence community?  Besides, Obama's strategy on Al Qaeda is pretty much a continuation on Bush.  

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/whose-terrorism-policies-get-credit-bush-or-obama-054247

People like to give credit to politicians for things like this, the economy, etc.

[Shoblongoo]

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

So...you can't defend Clinton without criticizing Trump

If at any point you think I am trying to defend Clinton, you have completely misunderstood my last post

I will say this on the raid though. From whats been reported; Hillary and Biden were both in  the room with Obama when the raid went down and giving him their advice on the matter.

Hillary advised that this was their best chance to capture or kill Osama, that their plan was sound, and that they could execute it. She recommended that Obama order Seal Team 6 to conduct the raid.

Biden advised that the risk of civilian casualties was high, that the raid could inflame relations with the Pakistanis, and that the possibility of killing or capturing Osama wasn't worth the potential fallout. He recommended that the president order Seal Team 6 to stand down and abort the mission.

The raid was carried out and Osama was killed because Obama sided with Hillary over Biden. Make of that what you will. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

On 01/08/2017 at 3:16 AM, Lord Raven said:

Bernie was also going to get destroyed in the general election.

http://www.joemygod.com/2016/11/15/newsweek-posts-gop-oppo-research-on-bernie-sander/

His policies were not backed up by fact at all. It's really quite fascinating. I voted for him, but only because it would drag Clinton further left rather than thinking he would win, because I knew he wouldn't win; minorities take up too much of the Democratic vote, and he didn't resonate with them at all. You are correct here.

I would back Mark Cuban because he knows what's up.

it hurts when I read stuff like this but if I'm not allowed to say that Bernie would have beaten Trump should he have had the opportunity to be in the General, I'm not so sure you could say he was going to get destroyed when his pollings against Trump were always higher than Hillary's

Bernie was the only one who was correct about some things, for example single payer healthcare, actually giving a shit about climate change, trying to end the US bloated wars, ending the "war on drugs" (which ironically disproportionately affects minorities of course, hillary ain't fighting for that shit), political reform, specifically over the oligarchy the US more or less has in its broken political system. if you want to say some of his policies are pie in the sky or to criticise him, then fine but at the same time I didn't see Trump or Hillary fighting for some of the objectively good things he was for

and no mark cuban, god no, please. he's a corporatist the same as hillary clinton that doesn't believe in single payer healthcare. even if he did win i wouldn't want a repeat (even if him and Hillary happened to be right in the case that those jobs aren't coming back in that video although it could be argued about how we deal with that, that does not mean he is good). he said he was anti-net neutrality, come on.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

His pollings against Trump were higher than Hilary's because he was a wedge candidate. Do you really think they would spend time shitting on Bernie if he drives a perfect wedge between voters who would go Democrat? You realize that this is why the Republican Party still doesn't go against Bernie Sanders right? He's still a wedge between parties. At this point you have the entire "never trump" Democratic Party along with the Bernie faction against Trump, but the Democratic Party has to appeal to the fiscal conservatives too. Whether or not he stood for the right thing is irrelevant when he can't make rational policy.

He also lost the vote in the primaries to Clinton by 3 million.

Also re:Cuban I see him as a dude I disagree with but has a much better view of things from the top than the rest. As I said, I wouldn't mind him, but he wouldn't be awful at all. I would still rather someone else.

@Shoblongoo It did stick to Obama! That's the thing -- Obama was still polarizing, and he still is polarizing to the extent where the whataboutism sticks to him.

Her conduct with the email server was not good but it also was exaggerated and not false. When I refer to exaggerated, I'm referring to specific issues with the Clintons (for instance, the Haiti funds) being lumped in with the entire Clinton Foundation (which has been a net good in the world). It does not mean I particularly liked her as a candidate.

I already explained the rationale of flip flopping; as Democrats shift further left she more or less aligns with her party in the end. My main issue with Clinton, in the end, is that she will keep the corporatist parts of the Obama admin and maybe amp up the drone strikes (thanks Trump for doing this anyway). Whether or not she believed what she was talking about was irrelevant when she discussed a clear plan and based plenty of her policy on evidence (as a politician should do). I don't mind as much when a democratic candidate caters to the right wing of the party because America is definitely built for incremental progress -- and I wholly believe she has friends in the Republican side of the aisle that wouldn't unilaterally go against her like they did Obama.

She also would assign her executive branch correctly and not roll back environmental regulations -- do you really think she'd not listen to Obama when he tells her the biggest issue is climate change? Because that's what Obama told Trump and he doesn't give two fucks.

I personally believe a Clinton presidency would lead to a greater right wing insurgence in 2020 and it would make things worse in the long term -- people simply don't like her, despite the cult of hatred against her being fairly exaggerated. She's simply not very charismatic, likable, and robotic and has zero sense of ideology short of being a public servant of the Democratic Party. Whether or not you value that in a politician is subjective, but at the base a politician can only survive with the polls and the viewpoints of their electorate along with coherent policy -- these are things that republicans before Trump have been able to do and these are things Trump has failed to do. These are also things Sanders has failed to do.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

59 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

His pollings against Trump were higher than Hilary's because he was a wedge candidate. Do you really think they would spend time shitting on Bernie if he drives a perfect wedge between voters who would go Democrat? You realize that this is why the Republican Party still doesn't go against Bernie Sanders right? He's still a wedge between parties. At this point you have the entire "never trump" Democratic Party along with the Bernie faction against Trump, but the Democratic Party has to appeal to the fiscal conservatives too. Whether or not he stood for the right thing is irrelevant when he can't make rational policy.

I wasn't really saying they would or would not - if he did win the general I'm sure the right wing hysteria machine would come out as always, but I'm not sure that's reliable to say that Sanders policies wouldn't be popular - we know they are. seems there was a decent amount of "never Clintons" too considering 9% of registered Democrats voted for Trump.

also, who are the "fiscal" conservatives and are they actually voting for democrats? there are very few people actually concerned with that and the ones that are, are probably going to vote republican anyway despite the fact that the majority of politics in the US seems to follow a system of socialism for corporations, war and the rich rather than actual fiscal conservatism. the democrats consistently have been choosing to appeal more to the right to try to scoop up "moderate" republicans who still don't vote for them instead of actually trying to at least pretend to appease a progressive base that could be willing to vote for them, and so far it hasn't been working.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

Bernie Sanders came out of nowhere.  I have no idea how he managed to pitch such a big story, other than appealing to the youth who don't understand we don't live in a utopian society.  Here's all you need to know:

His net worth has been estimated at ~330,000 and had considerable debts in the tens of thousands.  What gets me is how his supporters regarded this as a good thing, 'a man of the people''.  As though his poverty showed that he cares about the lower class.  Really, he was a daydreamer and took the most radical liberal ideas to heart because he choose to not have a stable source of income.  

He wanted free college for everyone.  Do you have any idea what a complete illusion this is?  Google tells me there are 1.8million bachelor graduates per year.  I know graduation for me cost well over 40,000.  He wants to put together a budget of 72 BILLION dollars.  And that's excluding graduate students and tradeschools which probably double that amount.  Finally, the number of graduates would likely INCREASE because now it's free.  College is a nonissue, ANYONE who uses their fucking brain can get through college and turn a profit in the next 15 or so years.  The only reason people say they can't afford it is because they decide to go into degrees that don't offer jobs with decent pay or they make very poor decisions and somehow don't graduate in 4 years (assuming its a 4 year degree).  I have a Sanders supporter friend who has failed over 10 classes and expected to graduate from his 4yr degree in 6 years.  Yea, no shit you can't afford it, it's not supposed to take that long and you're paying for the same classes twice.  On top of that, Bernie's health care reform plans are significantly more rigorous than Obama/Clinton would want it, so expect that budget to skyrocket.  His position on climate change is so drastic he would probably opt to shut down all coal plants at once, which again, would be very expensive.  Where the fuck is he going to get all this money?  Trade?  Nope, his views on China are surprisingly similar to Trump's he wants to completely reverse NAFTA.  He shares the same illusion Trump does that we can exist without china despite both of our countries being so dependent off one another.  I could go into more detail on this, but China is not the moneygrabbing monopoly people make it out to be. A large portion of the actual technology they mass manufacture comes from the US (think Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia which without support from them it would be impossible for other countries to build computers).  I haven't seen a single reasonable source for all this money other than maybe taking out our border patrol, defunding the military to a small militia, or most likely, taxing the rich and middle class so much we all move into the lower class to go down with the rest of the country when N. Korea decides to hit us b/c we can't afford a military.

On top of this, he wants to expand immigration because he thinks his new budget can afford to take in 11 million undocumented people.  

These ideologies can only be constructed in the mind of someone who simply doesn't understand the economy, as is apparent from his personal finances.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lushen

[eclipse]

26 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Bernie Sanders came out of nowhere.  I have no idea how he managed to pitch such a big story, other than appealing to the youth who don't understand we don't live in a utopian society.  Here's all you need to know:

His net worth has been estimated at ~330,000 and had considerable debts in the tens of thousands.  What gets me is how his supporters regarded this as a good thing, 'a man of the people''.  As though his poverty showed that he cares about the lower class.  Really, he was a daydreamer and took the most radical liberal ideas to heart because he choose to not have a stable source of income.  

He wanted free college for everyone.  Do you have any idea what a complete illusion this is?  Google tells me there are 1.8million bachelor graduates per year.  I know graduation for me cost well over 40,000.  He wants to put together a budget of 72 BILLION dollars.  And that's excluding graduate students and tradeschools which probably double that amount.  Finally, the number of graduates would likely INCREASE because now it's free.  College is a nonissue, ANYONE who uses their fucking brain can get through college and turn a profit in the next 15 or so years.  The only reason people say they can't afford it is because they decide to go into degrees that don't offer jobs with decent pay or they make very poor decisions and somehow don't graduate in 4 years (assuming its a 4 year degree).  I have a Sanders supporter friend who has failed over 10 classes and expected to graduate from his 4yr degree in 6 years.  Yea, no shit you can't afford it, it's not supposed to take that long and you're paying for the same classes twice.  On top of that, Bernie's health care reform plans are significantly more rigorous than Obama/Clinton would want it, so expect that budget to skyrocket.  His position on climate change is so drastic he would probably opt to shut down all coal plants at once, which again, would be very expensive.  Where the fuck is he going to get all this money?  Trade?  Nope, his views on China are surprisingly similar to Trump's he wants to completely reverse NAFTA.  He shares the same illusion Trump does that we can exist without china despite both of our countries being so dependent off one another.  I could go into more detail on this, but China is not the moneygrabbing monopoly people make it out to be. A large portion of the actual technology they mass manufacture comes from the US (think Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia which without support from them it would be impossible for other countries to build computers).  I haven't seen a single reasonable source for all this money other than maybe taking out our border patrol, defunding the military to a small militia, or most likely, taxing the rich and middle class so much we all move into the lower class to go down with the rest of the country when N. Korea decides to hit us b/c we can't afford a military.

On top of this, he wants to expand immigration because he thinks his new budget can afford to take in 11 million undocumented people.  

These ideologies can only be constructed in the mind of someone who simply doesn't understand the economy, as is apparent from his personal finances.

. . .remind me how much we spend on the military per year again?

[Lushen]

22 minutes ago, eclipse said:

. . .remind me how much we spend on the military per year again?

Well we are the world's largest superpower.

I think the military could tone down the spending significantly, but I don't think it's enough to pay for all this nonsense.  It's not like we can go from 600billion to 0.  If we cut out the military, sure we could afford to send everyone to college and treat everyone with free health care.  But we can't.  Even if we managed to cut it in half, 300 billion would likely not be enough to fund his oo cost budget.  And besides, we are the world's largest superpower.  I personally am not willing to give up our defense for people who can't manage their budget.  

But really, Bernie doesn't plan on reducing our military spending.  He plans on taking money from the rich.  I don't believe in trickle down economics, but increasing taxes on the rich by hundreds of billions of dollars in a short 8 year period will result in business leaving the US, mass layoffs, and stock market crashes.  I saw this ad on YouTube the other day and I found it to be quite informative.

Spoiler

 

The same thing happened in Brazil acc't to this guy.  The illusion of the word 'free' is very nice, but the money has to come from somewhere and the economy cannot handle massive budget changes overnight.

If they're disabled, among the elderly, or veterans I'm totally fine with paying for their education and health care.  But I'm not paying off that friend I mentioned's debt b/c he decided to not care about school (which is not hard to do).  I'm open to both sides from democrats and republicans on expanding/reducing the budget, but I truly don't believe Sander's utopian budget would be properly funded.  

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Shoblongoo]

53 minutes ago, eclipse said:

. . .remind me how much we spend on the military per year again?

^^^
Bingo

 

37 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Well we are the world's largest superpower.

I think the military could tone down the spending significantly, but I don't think it's enough to pay for all this nonsense.

We have the most overused, over-funded, over-prioritized military in the industrialized world.

We also have the worst healthcare and public education.

...this is not a coincidence...

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

*snip*

What does it matter if we are the largest superpower if we don't educate our people properly and history is repeated? Also, I've watched a lot of videos from that source, but the point you are trying to make falls flat when you consider that almost all the governments in South America are self-serving and corrupt, especially (not even, especially) Socialist ones. In my state, the Governor has passed a bill that guarantees that graduates and, come next year, adults that couldn't afford to, can go to a community college and earn their associates degree. The numbers you put up were assuming 4 years at an esteemed, privately funded university. I guarantee that going to a state-funded tertiary school in your home state or territory would cost half that, if not less. Also, the programs require a certain number of volunteer hours, so it's not entirely free, as you have to pay your time to something good to earn your education. I guarantee something similar would be implemented with Bernie: schools funded by and in the state you live in, 2 to 4 years only. It's not like he wants everyone to get a Ph.D or something. Sure, he might want a fantasy, but sometimes the impossible is inevitable, and so his ideas could pass to someone who has a better understanding of politics.

@eclipse It's what NATO agreed to, our GDP is just that much bigger than everyone else's in the world. I don't think Western Europe would be very happy if we became more like them at the expense of not having the weapons to defend themselves against the likes of Turkey (could've said Russia, but you can always trust them to be untrustworthy).

[Nobody]

38 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

  Hide contents

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Did you really post a video by fucking Felipe Moura? That man is a nutjob

I'm Brazilian. I'm well aware of what happened in here. I despise the Brazilian Workers Party, I really do. The worker's party destroyed ours economy. They're nothing like the democratic party, though. In fact, what the workers party did that RUINED our economy and brought stagflation is a LOT like what Trump plan to do in the United States I.E. government funding to favored industries (hello coal industry -thankfully the industries favoured here at least weren't as damagind to the enveroment as that one), FUCKING PROTECTIONISM (Dilma's AND Trump's biggest selling points), specially political incompetence (Trump can't approve anything, neither could Dilma), and ALSO total ignorance over how budget works (Dilma was literally impeached over breaking budgetary laws). As I've pointed out many times (all of which you have ignored), the Republican Party increased the American Debt way more than the Democrats did. So yeah, you are ignorant about the situation of my country, so don't try to bring it in here.

If anything, what happened in my country shows why Trump is a bad idea, not the mainstream democrats. BTW, I do think Sanders would also be quite problematic, but hey, between a bigot that doesn't understand economics and a good intentioned guy who doesn't understand economics, I'd take the later.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Nobody

[Lushen]

9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

We also have the worst healthcare and public education.

...this is not a coincidence...

 

You know what you may think is a coincidence?  We spend more money on health care per unit capita than anyone else in the world.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg

What about education? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_education_(%_of_GDP)  Not as bad, but still in the top 1/4th

Dumping money into a system clearly doesn't make it work.

@NobodyBernie Sanders is actually the one whose nothing like the democratic party.  Trump's ideologies are practically opposite to Bernies.  So perhaps you are totally ignorant to American politics.  In america, we don't take the nice guy whose going to destroy  the economy he knows nothing about because he's nice.  Isn't that exactly why that guy got elected in Brazil?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lushen

[Nobody]

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

@Nobody Bernie Sanders is actually the one whose nothing like the democratic party.  Trump's ideologies are practically opposite to Bernies.  So perhaps you are totally ignorant to American politics.  In america, we don't take the nice guy whose going to destroy  the economy he knows nothing about because he's nice.  Isn't that exactly why that guy got elected in Brazil?

I know, that's exactly my point. I like the mainstream democratic party. I think they have right social and economic policies. I'm no fan of Sanders. I think he ignores reality and proposes stuff that wouldn't really work. I'd still take him over any republican at this point, but I still think he's wrong economically.  

EDIT: Both Sanders and Trump are protectionists. I know they're very different, that doesn't mean they aren't both wrong. I never said Sanders was like Trump, I said Dilma was. You can read my post again and see where the similarities are. Or rather, you can read this nice article by bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-08/what-brazil-s-populist-bust-could-teach-trump

Oh, and Lula and Dilma were no 'nice guys'. And Trump will also tank the american economy if he does what he wants to (maybe the mainstream republicans can stop him in that matter, since they disagree with him there)

Also, Brazil has had public funded health care since WAY before Lula and Dilma. This has nothing to do with our current problems.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Nobody

[Shoblongoo]

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

We spend more money on health care per unit capita than anyone else in the world.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg

...because we use private insurance premiums as the primary means of healthcare financing, instead of public option, like every other sane country with a population living into its early 80s...

Really now. If that bothers you, Bernie should be your guy. He was literally the only candidate talking about how you bring our costs down in line with other countries by moving towards the system they use, instead of trying to tinker-around-the-edges with the insurance market.

(HINT: if we're doing one thing and every other country is doing something different, and those are the numbers we're getting, we should be doing what they do instead)

Edited August 3, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

22 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You know what you may think is a coincidence?  We spend more money on health care per unit capita than anyone else in the world.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg

You still never answered when I showed you how single payer systems in first world countries were vastly more efficient compared to the US.

There's a reason I left out government-funded college/university in what I was saying prior. I understood that it could be very debatable. What I was mainly concerned about are the things that almost anyone outside of warmongers or corrupt individuals can agree with if they look past the stigma of "socialised medicine".

23 minutes ago, Nobody said:

FUCKING PROTECTIONISM (Dilma's AND Trump's biggest selling points),

debatable in the case of Trump now, actually. Sure, he killed TPP to look good to his base, but he's bringing TPP provisions into his renegotiation of NAFTA, proving he was full of shit on protectionism. bait and switch

but hey, that's the guy who is "both a globalist and a nationalist", by his own words

Edited August 3, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lushen]

23 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

You still never answered when I showed you how single payer systems in first world countries were vastly more efficient compared to the US.

You do realize one of the big issues with our healthcare is the healthcare our veterans (VA) are getting right?  Which is a single payer system...right?  I don't think it's as simple as choosing single payer or not, I think both can work - the issue with our healthcare is democracy.  We have had democrats and republicans fighting over it for years and we've developed a very odd in-between health care system.

As for our schools, you're right we have one of the worst public schools in the country.  Yet...we have some of the best colleges....

Edited August 3, 2017 by Lushen