Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by HeHasTheJazzHands, Jun 6, 2016.
Actually I'd rather she just stay on the island. Forever.
Gary Johnson 2016 will be my vote, just like it was in 2012. I believe this is the first year a third party candidate (libertarian in this case) will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Screw bipartisanship; it's so bloated and ridiculous. Seriously, why other parties don't get federal funding or are allowed to participate in nationally televised debates is beyond me!
I actually don't prefer the status quo or government and politics remaining stagnant in the pool of thei own filth. I rarely get surprised by politicians, when Obama was ready to take office I was expecting him to do even less from what he did, even if most people were ecstatic in the US. I'm sure Hillary will be a quite awful US president that will mainly pander the 1%. I never saw number two happen in your country and it isn't going to happen anytime soon as government assistant is considered a vile slur in your neck of the woods.
However I prefer the crazy person being in charge to be at least a medicated one that kind of goes to therapy (but secretly is planning to slash my throat) than the one shouting at the streets and sharpening his knife at plain view with a grin on his face looking at me.
Anyone making a bid for presidency backed by a large pool of monetary resources needs to be taken seriously.
Not picking on you in particular, just looking to highlight the complexity of this - I'm actually pretty pro-free-trade, and that's one of the reasons that I supported her over Sanders. NAFTA hasn't been bad for America - for all that talk about a "giant sucking sound of jobs leaving for Mexico" in the 90s, it wasn't even a blip on American employment. And protectionism doesn't make much sense - sure, Chevy may be making cars in Mexico, but Toyota's making them here, too - it goes both ways. And America's economy hasn't been manufacturing driven for decades, anyway - we're a service sector country, and our intellectual capital is a greater differentiator than manufacturing might. I'm fine with expanding free trade, especially with deals like the TPP also coming with expanding market liberalization abroad for participant companies. That's a good thing for America, and a good thing for the rest of the world.
Glass-Steagall is a little iffy, too - retail banking isn't too exciting, but it offers huge capital buffers to shelter losses in other areas of the business, so breaking up retail banks and investment banks will likely increase risk for investment banks, fairly significantly. I think the Dodd-Frank/Basel 3 approach of instead requiring larger risk-weighted capital buffers is probably something that will result in the banking industry as a whole being more stable, for all its flaws (one unintended side effect is it seems to be causing banks to further consolidate - retail banking is largely driven by the differential between the interest rate paid on liabilities vs received on assets, so the best way to grow revenue is get bigger).
And I don't think America can plausibly step back from the rest of the world. If there's anything we learned in the cold war, pulling out of a conflict (Afghanistan, after we defeated the russians) and the vacuum that can leave can often be more dangerous than going in in the first place. I don't want to see us make that mistake again.
Idunno, man. It's tough.
Randy - for reasons to vote for Clinton, I'd offer these; she wants to make a significant increase in the minimum wage. She's interested in overhauling America's education/student loan system to make it easier and more affordable for American students to go to college. She wants to further expand access to health care coverage for Americans, both public and private sector. She's highly likely to seat at least one, possibly more, supreme court justices, and she will undoubtedly select a liberal justice. She, at a minimum, will not weaken financial regulation, and as she continues to court Warren she may even look to further strengthen them. She's pro-immigration, pro-same-sex marriage, and enjoys massive support from the African-American community so she must be doing something right there too. She wants to make our tax code more progressive.
And, I mean, I know you don't consider "stopping Trump" a reason, but personally I find "she doesn't want to build a wall with Mexico, she doesn't want to ban all Muslims, even US citizens, from the US, unless they're her personal friends, and she doesn't want to default on US debt and "renegotiate" Treasury bonds with the rest of the world" pretty compelling reasons. It's been a while since we've had a Republican president. I want to keep it that way.
I agree it's tough and there is no one right solution. However, we've tried the free trade route and the American people have not reaped the benefits. Take NAFTA for instance - we were at a 181 Billion trading deficit with our trading partners as of 2014 (not sure what it is at currently so take that with a grain of salt).
My industry (IT) in particular is really hurting from the current regulations. I've been with my company just about 15 years and in the last 5 alone almost all of our new employment has been in Egypt, Indonesia, China and a small outfit in the Czech Republic. Our breakdown used to roughly match the dispersion of customers (as we're a global operation). Roughly 70% of our customer base is in the USA and that used to be roughly our concentration of staff in the USA. It's now down to about 35% in terms of support staff located in the USA. That's all from well within the time period of the Obama administration. I don't see Clinton improving that situation, particularly since the policies that started that originated in the Bill Clinton administration and he is who she's putting back in charge.
Most economists agree Glass-Steagall (in it's original form, not the neutered version we had in 1999) would have prevented the 2007-2008 crash; I'm not an economist, so I'll take their word for it. What I do know is that consumer banking needs to be isolated from investment banking to protect average people's investments in their property.
I'm not a big fan on the concept of privatizing gains while socializing losses.
As far as international conflict goes - we already made the vacuum; Clinton in particular (Libya) and she doesn't regret any of her actions. The US has meddled in foreign affairs for years with main goals of monetary gains from arms production and natural resource thievery. It's beyond time for it to stop. I don't need people calling themselves Democrats when they act like Republicans in policy decisions.
Most economists disagree on everything. I think, high level though, there are too sides to that debate, first whether it would have prevented it (and it may have), and second, at what cost would it have prevented it. Financial innovation has done a lot of good, too.
I'm in the Financial industry (no crap, eh? ) and for a while we were seeing a lot of outsourcing of low-level operations roles. However, in the finance industry, that trend has reversed - "on-sourcing" is the new buzzword, with firms pulling jobs back. I'm no longer in the fund administration/operations industry, but my experience working on outsourced projects (I spent a couple months in India in '07) leads me to suspect that it's no longer cost-effective due to the rapidly increasing cost of labor, and that the quality of work being done was never all that great to begin with. These days the focus is on lower-cost domestic operations, as well as moving support staff offshore when it makes sense from a time zone standpoint for coverage for global operations. Have you seen a similar trend in your field?
Yes, I have seen a similar trend in our operation, but it's still disproportionate (in terms of US to offshore resources) when looking at the proportions of our customer base.
Labor in India and Egypt is on the rise, as you stated and so there are now resources being tapped in Indonesia / Philippines and most recently in mainland China.
Of course, once cost of labor equalizes across the globe it will be mostly a moot point, but that's still the better part of a century away and der Trumpen-fuhrer might have radiated the planet, or Exxon / Mobil / BP / insert your fossil fuel company of choice) has otherwise made the planet uninhabitable by the time that happens.
I'm for free-trade in theory, I just don't think the agreements themselves have been conducive to growth for the American people at large. It's certainly been beneficial to some people, but those are typically people that like to hoard large sums of money and not inject it back into the economy where it can do some real good.
This is an attitude I see a lot, and I kind of wonder how much of that has to do with the nature of the economic recovery we've seen.
Since the market crash in 2007, we've seen a strong recovery in the stock market (thanks in large part, I suspect, to zero interest rate policies and quantitative easing encouraging a risk-on trade, though it helps that the US is essentially the only developed market economy putting up growth right now), but at the same time we've seen low inflation (which has kept personal balance sheet leverage higher than it might otherwise - inflation reduces debt in "real" terms) coupled with low average income growth. So, because of that, people with large amounts of investable wealth have done pretty well in the last decade, while people whose incomes are primarily from wages and not investment income have comparatively lagged.
We're starting to see wage growth pick up a little bit so there's hope, but I do kind of wonder if a lot of this growing income inequality has a lot to do with the fact that return on capital has been a lot higher than return on labor.
Just thinking out loud here.
Anyone going to this?
Now that's defending democracy and the right to choose your leaders /s
We are a nation of puffs.
Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com
This is what we need: Unity. It was eventually gonna happen, but good on Bernie for finally doing it.
"Stop Trump at all costs" =/= Unity
I'm a life-long Democrat and I can tell you Hillary's nomination and the arguments made by the people who support her (several of which that have participated in this very thread and others on here) have absolutely turned my stomach to supporting this party going forward.
Yea, I'm done as far as the Democratic party is concerned; the actions of the establishment in this primary have disgusted me.
I'll vote for her in the general (or I would if I lived in a swing state) but I'm in camp meteor at this point.
Johnson > Kasich > Sanders
In this election cycle in order of who I would want to have as a president. Too bad my vote is reduced to "not Trump tho". We ....ing deserve this .... show though. A country that repeatedly has young people that just don't bother showing up. Only old people who bother showing up for all the smaller elections in each state. A complete lack of term limits and people uninterested in voting for it/pushing the issue.
This is what happens when people let "other people" run the show for too long. We have schools in states that think not teaching science and climate change is a good thing. And people just let it happen.
It sucks, but I'm glad it's embarrassing. No one paid attention to candidates that may have potentially been better candidates because that takes effort. And this election was run purely on brand power, which is what they always devolve into. Then by the end it's just "red team or blue team".
So, the parties are organized such that they have a better chance of winning. I get that. You compromise on a lot of lesser issues in order to have someone in place to push the bigger issues your way. But the democrats and republicans seem only to differ on smaller issues, mostly, meaning that it's time for the next evolution of US politics. Maybe it won't happen today, but it has to happen soon, or else this country will go the way of the dodo.
What the ....?
Reducing taxes/simplifying the tax code
Freedom of religion not being used as a shield to bigotry
Access to women's medical needs
Social Equality (how the .... does it take 50 years since the civil rights movement for gay people to be legally treated like other red blooded tax paying citizens.)
Letting trans people poop in peace
Gun Control (personally I think automatic rifles are just toys, everyone should be able to own as many handguns/shotguns/non AR's as they want though)
Foreign policy with depth greater than "no more people of various shades of brown/black"
These are not small issues. It's just that the candidates for important jobs are crap, because as citizens many of us do not put forth the time and effort to review our options regularly and critically, and vote in people who seem to be getting work done and vote out career butt-sitters.
This country is not going the way of the dodo ever, due to the fact that it is still one of the best places to invest, begin a new company, securely raise a family, amongst many other first world benefits we enjoy.
That doesn't mean we should be as lazy and apathetic as most of the country has been for so long.
I really hope the younger end of the millenial voting block starts getting involved so we can start making some progress/negotiations/compromises and move into the next century properly. We're the most dopest country to live in or start over in, and we drag ass at so many things we should be able to improve. (Not magically fix overnight, but like CPR some improvement is better than none.)
Gens X and Y whined a lot, but never mobilized enough to really care outside of presidential elections, because things were largely still pretty good for them.
I hope people start looki up their senators/congressmen. Even if we disagree, you should still vote beyond which color team they are. Registered democrat here but often like republican/independent candidates more so I vote accordingly. Mind you, I'm still guilty of waiting to the last minute before looking anything up, so I'm not trying to to act like a saint. We're all busy, I get it, but whining because we put no effort in at any point in 4 years and now want things to matter isn't how the world works.
You don't sleep through college for 4 years and get rewarded with a degree and job. You don't blow off all elections for any leaders then act mad when they don't give a .... about what you care about. $0.020001
...and meanwhile they are fairly soon going to be in recess and their top priorities are not fixing things like the water crisis in Flint, but instead on polarizing issues like gun control they can use as leverage for November.
I'm honestly convinced that a lot of the things Republicans do is just political catnip that they don't have any intention on getting done or having it stick around. Like when Texas tried to diminish the right to access abortion they had to know it'd eventually get struck down, but they pursued it anyhow because the people who vote for them want these things even though it is a complete waste of time. It's the same exact thing that occurred when they were attempting to repeal Obamacare WHEN OBAMA WOULD OBVIOUSLY VETO IT IF IT GOT TO HIS DESK. Politicians are manipulative not dumb.
When it comes to corporations, banking/financing, trade, and things that affect the economy/market there really isn't a lot of difference between the two parties. They both talk about tax reform, but it never seems like they get it done, or get it done in any meaningful way, and if you compare Obama's tax rates with Clinton's Obama still reduced the tax rate across the board.
Seriously though, there is no reason anything else should be debated at the moment until Flint and cities with similar problems get the resolution they so dearly deserve. It has been a problem for over two years and has been considered a state of emergency by both the federal and state government for six months. The reason Democrats chose to do a sit-in for gun legislation instead of issues like this is because, you guessed it, gun legislation is political catnip for liberals. All they care about is getting reelected. It's not that the issues they choose to bring to the table don't matter, but that there are seriously more pressing issues that go ignored because there is nothing to gain politically by solving them. [IMO]
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, and I hope you don't group me in there, since I definitely tried to give you other reasons to support Clinton than "she's not Trump." Which, to be fair, was an argument I must have just run into a lot less than you, because I was under the impression that there were plenty of other reasons given for Sanders supporters to rally behind Clinton in the general.
On any Sander related page Clinton supporters have been seriously overusing Trump as a rally cry or making false claims about voting third party in attempt to convince/force people to vote the way they want. 'Unite to defeat Trump' is an incredibly common theme I've seen all over the web and even in my emails from the DNC. I'm surprised you haven't seen it more often. More likely it just doesn't bother you as much so it doesn't register on your radar though, because it's everywhere.