Support NeoGAF

[Abinash117]

Well, I think it's worth noting that even Canada's Conservatives embraced Kenynesianism during the recession.

The Democrats have undeniably been center-right since at least the 80s. Reagan shifted the entire spectrum to the right, and Clinton's entire governing philosophy was to advocate for progressive social policy alongside more conservative economics. The party followed suit, and though Obama's election was expected to be the end of the "Reagan Era" (given his pro-stimulus / anti-NAFTA rhetoric), the reality is that not much has changed (Obama loves the TPP!).

Thankfully the progressive wing seems to be growing, but the impact of Third Way/New Democrats will be felt for quite a while longer.

Free trade is popular in the US. I don't think just because Dems support free trade agreements it doesn't mean they are in the conservative side of things . That's kind of a purist stance.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I thought the strict definition would be the former - worker or social ownership - while the latter - re-distributive policies and regulations - was considered social democracy. Semantics I guess. But I don't think there's generally a mood among the general populace to overthrow capitalism market-based economies, so much as rein them in to make them more just. In that basic regard, I don't think the US is necessarily different from other countries, although the vigour with which they actually try at all to rein in any excesses is probably a major point of difference.

 

[NobleXenon]

Venezuela.

Nah, Socialism means every house has a fresh coat of paint.

 

[campfireweekend]

Well, I think it's worth noting that even Canada's Conservatives embraced Kenynesianism during the recession.

The Democrats have undeniably been center-right since at least the 80s. Reagan shifted the entire spectrum to the right, and Clinton's entire governing philosophy was to advocate for progressive social policy alongside more conservative economics. The party followed suit, and though Obama's election was expected to be the end of the "Reagan Era" (given his pro-stimulus / anti-NAFTA rhetoric), the reality is that not much has changed (Obama loves the TPP!).

Thankfully the progressive wing seems to be growing, but the impact of Third Way/New Democrats will be felt for quite a while longer.

In response to the bonded, is protectionism the only appropriate position for a left wing politician to hold when it comes to trade?

Trade deals, according to almost all prevailing economic literature, increase GDP, while also bettering the conditions of the poorer countries that are part of the deals.

That this rise in GDP is not equitably distributed is not the fault of the trade deals, but the failings of the American tax system as a redistributive scheme.

 

[Coriolanus]

Venezuela.

Would call them about as socialist as china is communist.

 

[Cerium]

Would call them about as socialist as china is communist.

:rolleyes

No True Scotsman.

 

[shinra-bansho]

In a fascinating way, whoever wins the republican nomination from the top 4 contenders will be an upset in one form or another.

1) Trump - total outsider, insanely racist campaign, to the point where the GOP is openly plotting against him.

2) Carson - no ground network, no history of running for election, and one of the most bizarre (and worrying) characters to emerge onto the scene.

3) Crux - whilst he's running a smart, traditional campaign, he is also utterly loathed by the establishment. There are a lot of republicans who would rather Hilary won than Cruz. If he gets it, it will be the first time the establishment has been so clearly kicked in the teeth.

4) Rubio - establishment candidate, but not running a campaign in the normal sense at all. Primaries follow a very traditional method, and he's running his out of star bucks. No-ones ever managed that and got the nomination.


One way or the other, the traditional "rules" of the republican primary system have been broken. Heck, we already broke the "next in line" rule with Santorum and Huckabee doing so terribly.

EDIT: If I could change my vote, I'd bet on Cruz right now. He has been *so* smart about his campaign compared to everyone else. I'm also worried because he's a very good debater who can appear reasonable whilst spouting utter evil, and if the economy hits a downturn as people expect he's the last person I'd want as president.

So I just saw this post from earlier.

I'm just going to add Jeb! in that he has, or at least had, the money. But is basically terrible in every other way.

The problem for the GOP is that each candidate has a particular thing, but kind of lacks everything else.

If you took Jeb!'s money backing and I guess gubernatorial experience, Rubio's establishment backing and youth/telegenic visage/relative eloquence, Cruz's campaign, which is really the best of the bunch, Carson's favourables and Trump's teflon ability to ignite passion - and rolled them all into one, then you'd have a formidable candidate.

Which one of these guys can best roll up the most of these into a single package?

 

[Coriolanus]

:rolleyes

No True Scotsman.

Define your view of socialism and tell me how they fit.

There's a reason shinra went out of his way to state "actually socialist and not just using the label ".

 

[HylianTom]

Remember how we said that the Louisiana governor's seat is one of the most powerful in the nation? This is paying dividends already. A good example:

The governor traditionally names the Speaker of the House, regardless of which party actually has the majority there. From there, the speaker names committee chairs.

Today, Edwards named my representative, Walt Leger, as his desired man for the job. And news has broken that the House GOP, though they signaled resistance early on, will relent. (This happened with Jindal as well, when the Dems had a narrow majority in his first term.)

New Orleans will actually have some leverage in the legislative process, instead of just serving as a powerless piggy bank; I am so damn psyched!

 

[User 406]

If you took Jeb!'s money backing and I guess gubernatorial experience, Rubio's establishment backing and youth/telegenic visage/relative eloquence, Cruz's campaign, which is really the best of the bunch, Carson's favourables and Trump's teflon ability to ignite passion - and rolled them all into one, then you'd have a formidable candidate.

Which one of these guys can best roll up the most of these into a single package?

If this is the start of some fanfiction where Ben Carson operates on all the candidates to make some kind of GOP Frankenstein's monster...


... I'm totally down.

I got Reagan's brain for you, Doctor!

 

[Slime]

Free trade is popular in the US. I don't think just because Dems support free trade agreements it doesn't mean they are in the conservative side of things . That's kind of a purist stance.

I don't think you can have a discussion about the absence of a left in the US without sounding like a purist. It's just the landscape is so inherently right-leaning that a lot of right-wing economic policy is popular. In a lot of cases Democratic positions have shifted to the right as a compromise (ACA being a market-driven alternative to universal health care, constructed by conservatives, and yet still too liberal for modern Republicans), but that still makes the Democrats a center-right party.

I guess you could say the Democrats are a center-right party that really really wants to be progressive, but even that feels like a recent development, as Bill just flat-out embraced economic conservatism.

In response to the bonded, is protectionism the only appropriate position for a left wing politician to hold when it comes to trade?

Trade deals, according to almost all prevailing economic literature, increase GDP, while also bettering the conditions of the poorer countries that are part of the deals.

That this rise in GDP is not equitably distributed is not the fault of the trade deals, but the failings of the American tax system as a redistributive scheme.

Personally I prefer fair trade to outright protectionism.

I think a lot of progressives oppose unfettered free trade agreements on social justice grounds rather than just economics.

 

[Manmademan]

So I just saw this post from earlier.

I'm just going to add Jeb! in that he has, or at least had, the money. But is basically terrible in every other way.

The problem for the GOP is that each candidate has a particular thing, but kind of lacks everything else.

If you took Jeb!'s money backing and I guess gubernatorial experience, Rubio's establishment backing and youth/telegenic visage/relative eloquence, Cruz's campaign, which is really the best of the bunch, Carson's favourables and Trump's teflon ability to ignite passion - and rolled them all into one, then you'd have a formidable candidate.

Which one of these guys can best roll up the most of these into a single package?

you know there's only one answer to this.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Kasich's new ad is literally: "First Trump will come for the Muslims, then for the Mexican Americans, then there may be no one to stop him from coming after you."?

 

[BertramCooper]

Kasich's new ad is literally: "First Trump will come for the Muslims, then for the Mexican Americans, then there may be no one to stop him from coming after you."?

I have no clue what Kasich still hopes to achieve in this race.

 

[Macho Madness]

Kasich's new ad is literally: "First Trump will come for the Muslims, then for the Mexican Americans, then there may be no one to stop him from coming after you."?

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCQhBYEMRQI

 

[kess]

you know there's only one answer to this.

Here's a better picture to photoshop Cruz's face on.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The federal government impacts day-to-day American life much less than state governments. Hell, most countries in the world are on the same level/scale as our states, it's kind of crazy when you think about it. Obviously I won't be happy living under President Trump, but other than Supreme Court nominees, there's not much he would or could do that couldn't be undone in 8 years or dealt with at a state level. States routinely build much higher floors than the federal government provides, they're our great laboratories of democracy as they say. I can't imagine leaving the country and my state just because the President is someone I don't like. I get moving between states (see Brownback getting reelected), but ditching the entire US seems like an overreaction when you can easily align yourself with a state that reflects your values.

 

[Y2Kev]

Is Jeb! really doubling down on the "You can tell Christians" thing?

 

[j_k_redtail]

I have no clue what Kasich still hopes to achieve in this race.

Sensible talk like that isn't gonna win him the primary, that's for sure.

 

[pigeon]

Personally I prefer fair trade to outright protectionism.

I think a lot of progressives oppose unfettered free trade agreements on social justice grounds rather than just economics.

But that's not social justice, it's just good old-fashioned colonialism. "We know the right way to do things, so we want you to adopt our moral principles and ethics or we won't give you cheap food any more." Sounds familiar!

If you're worried about the economic position of poor people, in America or out of America, you should advocate for policies that will help them, say, giving them a bunch of money and goods which you get from all the free trade you're doing.

Advocating for protectionist policies for either side is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[User 406]

The federal government impacts day-to-day American life much less than state governments. Hell, most countries in the world are on the same level/scale as our states, it's kind of crazy when you think about it. Obviously I won't be happy living under President Trump, but other than Supreme Court nominees, there's not much he would or could do that couldn't be undone in 8 years or dealt with at a state level. States routinely build much higher floors than the federal government provides, they're our great laboratories of democracy as they say. I can't imagine leaving the country and my state just because the President is someone I don't like. I get moving between states (see Brownback getting reelected), but ditching the entire US seems like an overreaction when you can easily align yourself with a state that reflects your values.

Well, that's largely going to depend on what those new Supreme Court nominees end up overturning. I wouldn't blame any gay people for bailing out if it looked like Obergefell could fall. Or anyone with a chronic illness if the ACA ended up being gutted.

 

[campfireweekend]

I don't think you can have a discussion about the absence of a left in the US without sounding like a purist. It's just the landscape is so inherently right-leaning that a lot of right-wing economic policy is popular. In a lot of cases Democratic positions have shifted to the right as a compromise (ACA being a market-driven alternative to universal health care, constructed by conservatives, and yet still too liberal for modern Republicans), but that still makes the Democrats a center-right party.

I guess you could say the Democrats are a center-right party that really really wants to be progressive, but even that feels like a recent development, as Bill just flat-out embraced economic conservatism.



Personally I prefer fair trade to outright protectionism.

I think a lot of progressives oppose unfettered free trade agreements on social justice grounds rather than just economics.

Didn't see your response until now.

When you say fair trade, does that take into account that one of the goals of TPP is to raise labor standards of the signatories to be more comparable to our own?

For example, countries such as Vietnam are likely to see both wage increases, as well as introductions of worker's rights that didn't exist previously.

Is that fair trade? Or is fair trade ignoring the comparative advantage those countries hold in low wage jobs, and refusing to do business with them until their labor practices are closer to our own?

Because one of those methods will introduce real positive change to the workers of those countries, while the other will solely make social justice inclined liberals feel better.

 

[Manmademan]

Is Jeb! really doubling down on the "You can tell Christians" thing?

let's be honest...does it even matter? his campaign is beyond dead.

 

[120v]

I have no clue what Kasich still hopes to achieve in this race.

pretty sure he's running for veep. not going about it the best way but whatever

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Well, that's largely going to depend on what those new Supreme Court nominees end up overturning. I wouldn't blame any gay people for bailing out if it looked like Obergefell could fall. Or anyone with a chronic illness if the ACA ended up being gutted.

I just don't see anyone being nominated in this environment that would lead to those kind of reversals. I think we would get more Roberts-like justices who know that some lines just can't be crossed.

 

[Oblivion]

Is Jeb! really doubling down on the "You can tell Christians" thing?

Of course he is. This is the same guy that ratcheted up the "my brother kept us safe on 9/11" gambit.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think you can have a discussion about the absence of a left in the US without sounding like a purist. It's just the landscape is so inherently right-leaning that a lot of right-wing economic policy is popular. In a lot of cases Democratic positions have shifted to the right as a compromise (ACA being a market-driven alternative to universal health care, constructed by conservatives, and yet still too liberal for modern Republicans), but that still makes the Democrats a center-right party.

I guess you could say the Democrats are a center-right party that really really wants to be progressive, but even that feels like a recent development, as Bill just flat-out embraced economic conservatism.



Personally I prefer fair trade to outright protectionism.

I think a lot of progressives oppose unfettered free trade agreements on social justice grounds rather than just economics.

Compromise was needed or you have never gotten the healthcare. I think if the trade deals really do help the economy out then it is something that should be pursued. Maybe Obama actually thinks it is not so bad as people make it to be. I disagree there is a left in the Dem party and there is a left wing party which is the green party. Again I don't think because a position they took is a right-wing position it means they are center-right. Quite a few Republicans think there needs to be a solution to criminal justice , maybe some conservatives does that make them a center-left? If hell freezes over and the Republicans think raising tax on the rich is a good idea, they will be center-left now?

The board-ness of both parties and the realities of position of the country makes it to simple to say a party is a part of a wing now that they had a position that might be contrary to a left or right one, even if it is only one.

 

[Oblivion]

I love Trump and his staff:

"For the mainstream media to go out and say that this didn’t happen is just factually inaccurate,” Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told Breitbart News, as first reported by People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.

....

Lewandowski claimed the Trump campaign “has provided [the media with] local media outlets that have covered” scenes of Muslim Americans celebrating the 9/11 attacks, but he says the media is suppressing this footage.

“[Trump has] provided many opportunities for them to go and see it but they have their own agenda, the media has their own agenda,” Lewandowski said. "They want to try and discredit as many people as possible so they can have an establishment candidate come in and think that everything is going to be the same because they are all controlled by the special interests and they are all controlled by the media and it is what the American people are just so tired of.”

Boy, not only has the media refused to show the proof that the Trump campaign provided him, but they're also somehow preventing him from giving that same proof to Republican friendly outlets like Breitbart as well!

 

[dabig2]

The federal government impacts day-to-day American life much less than state governments. Hell, most countries in the world are on the same level/scale as our states, it's kind of crazy when you think about it. Obviously I won't be happy living under President Trump, but other than Supreme Court nominees, there's not much he would or could do that couldn't be undone in 8 years or dealt with at a state level. States routinely build much higher floors than the federal government provides, they're our great laboratories of democracy as they say. I can't imagine leaving the country and my state just because the President is someone I don't like. I get moving between states (see Brownback getting reelected), but ditching the entire US seems like an overreaction when you can easily align yourself with a state that reflects your values.

It's more to do with the overall direction the country is heading in case Trump wins. If he wins, he's riding a wave of horror all across the nation. Like, it's not just Trump winning and we might get progressives elsewhere. In an environment where Trump wins, then shit went horrific for the entire Dem party and no one is surviving. 2010 probably set this country back a decade. I shudder at what a Trump momentum win would do to the country's already kinda slow progress in 2016, especially if the economy cycle turns back to shit soon. Yeah, no thanks.

 

[User 406]

I just don't see anyone being nominated in this environment that would lead to those kind of reversals. I think we would get more Roberts-like justices who know that some lines just can't be crossed.

Well, the Roberts court brought us Citizens United, and overturned part of the VRA which led to southern states drafting new restrictive voting laws within hours of the ruling, so I don't share that confidence. And considering how many people feel that Cruz has a shot, I'd expect we'd be lucky if his nominees are against burning witches.

 

[Fenderputty]

Radom but, Gavin Newsom was on Mahr. Dude killed it. Can't wait to vote for him as gov in 2018.

 

[noshten]

Didn't see your response until now.

When you say fair trade, does that take into account that one of the goals of TPP is to raise labor standards of the signatories to be more comparable to our own?

For example, countries such as Vietnam are likely to see both wage increases, as well as introductions of worker's rights that didn't exist previously.

Is that fair trade? Or is fair trade ignoring the comparative advantage those countries hold in low wage jobs, and refusing to do business with them until their labor practices are closer to our own?

Because one of those methods will introduce real positive change to the workers of those countries, while the other will solely make social justice inclined liberals feel better.

How exactly are those rights be enforced, for example Vietnam is already backing away.

Despite repeated vows by Vietnam’s leaders that the country’s stance towards labor negotiations and human rights will change, there are literally dozens of stories like Nhat’s. On Nov. 9 – just a week days earlier – two lawyers advising the family of a young man who died in police custody case were attacked by mask-wearing thugs in Hanoi, leaving them bloody and bruised, one of the victims told Asia Human Rights Defenders. Lawyers Tran Thu Nam and Le Van Luan were meeting with the family of Do Dang Du —a 17-year-old who was declared dead by authorities on Oct. 10 after more than a month in detention—when they were assaulted by eight unidentified men, Luan told RFA’s Vietnamese Service.

A statement from the White House said that “Trade policy should reflect not only our interests, but also our values. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has provided the administration with significant opportunities to make progress on human rights issues. Both in the agreement itself, as well as in our bilateral engagement, we are working through trade to ensure that people everywhere are treated with dignity and respect. We are working on country-specific issues and building on our human rights dialogues. We are also using TPP to support jobs, take on corruption, and improve living standards for workers and families at home and abroad.

But, said Brad Adams, the Southeast Asia executive director for Human Rights Watch in a printed statement earlier this year, ““People point to South Korea and Taiwan and say economic liberalization automatically leads to democracy, but you can also point to Singapore and Malaysia that are economically strong but have no sign of any real democratic futures. The trade policy people in Washington D.C. like to evangelize that the TPP will bring democracy to countries like Vietnam, but the reality is Vietnam’s Communist Party will take the parts of the TPP they want and ignore the rest.”

Unfortunately, Adams may prove more prescient than the White House.

http://www.asiasentinel.com/society/rights-activists-still-suffer-in-vietnam/

What are the guarantees Governments will be held accountable? The past certainly doesn't paint a very good picture

In April 2008, the AFL-CIO, together with several Guatemalan labor unions, filed a petition under the Central America Free Trade Agreement. This is the first step in initiating a complaint when there has been a violation of the labor commitments in a trade agreement. The petition alleged that the Guatemalan government failed to enforce its own labor laws — tolerating repression of union activity and blacklisting, as well as violence and intimidation, including the assassination of two union officers.

In March 2012, the AFL-CIO and more than 20 Honduran labor organizations alleged that Honduras, too, was failing to enforce its labor laws. This petition detailed egregious violations affecting hundreds of workers. Not only did the Honduran government fail to protect workers from beatings and assassination, but its own police and soldiers were implicated in a number of cases. Despite the egregious and repeated violations, the Obama administration took almost three years to even publish a report. Workers wait for justice.

In April 2010, the U.S. and Colombian governments, with an eye toward speeding ratification of the long-stalled U.S.-Colombia trade deal, announced a “labor action plan,” which was intended to bring Colombia into compliance with internationally recognized labor rights. Since the plan’s announcement, 105 Colombian trade unionists have been assassinated. Clearly, the new standard — reportedly similar to what’s included in the TPP — is insufficient to the monumental task of creating a fair playing field for U.S. and Colombian workers. Workers wait for justice.

If employers can violate the right to unionize with impunity, they can easily bring down wages, for all workers, globally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ab0a9e-f583-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html

- The agreement makes no progress on enforcement, ignoring common-sense proposals like requiring the parties to conduct timely, impartial investigations of allegations of non-compliance and firm deadlines for implementing necessary reforms.

- Requests to prohibit the trade of goods made with forced or child labor and to establish mechanisms to seize such goods at the border came out with the TPP merely "discouraging" trade in goods made with these egregious human rights violations.

- Requests to include protections for migrant workers, such as regulating labor recruiters or prohibiting confiscation of passports, were wholly ignored, despite well-documented, systemic exploitation of migrant workers in a number of TPP countries.

Malaysia has well-documented, severe problems with the abuse of migrant workers, including widespread forced labor and human trafficking. In July, the Wall Street Journal documented workers trafficked from Bangladesh to Malaysia to work on palm oil plantations. The workers were in debt to a labor recruiter, their employer had confiscated their passports, many had not been paid in months and they were subjected to regular beatings. Many had come through jungle camps on Malaysia's border that made international news throughout 2015, as mass graves of trafficking victims continued to be discovered. In the camps, refugees and other vulnerable populations are forced to call relatives to extort money for kidnappers while being tortured for weeks and months on end.

These are not minor compliance issues; rather, they are systemic abuses of fundamental labor rights that will place these countries severely out of compliance with the TPP's labor chapter on day one. In light of entrenched abuses in Vietnam and Malaysia, the TPP's mere 'discouragement' of importing goods made with forced labor is clearly a gaping flaw that should oblige policy makers to start over and demand genuine worker accountability for any further trade negotiations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-gearhart/tpp-ignores-worker-needs_b_8537878.html


Certainly doesn't seem there is going to be anything more than a slap on the wrist for anyone involved - while countless victims will fall victim so we can have more cheap s--t

 

[Makai]

 

[Makai]

Lindsey Graham - "Turkey punched Russia in the nose. Good for Turkey"

 

[User 406]

I like how the percentage of Santorum's brown is leaking onto Carly.

 

[Makai]

Asked about what Russia's response will be -

"Nothing. They've got twelve planes. Six can't fly. At the end of the day, I'm not worried about Putin. He's got a pair of twos. We've got a full house."

 

[Slime]

Didn't see your response until now.

When you say fair trade, does that take into account that one of the goals of TPP is to raise labor standards of the signatories to be more comparable to our own?

For example, countries such as Vietnam are likely to see both wage increases, as well as introductions of worker's rights that didn't exist previously.

Is that fair trade? Or is fair trade ignoring the comparative advantage those countries hold in low wage jobs, and refusing to do business with them until their labor practices are closer to our own?

Because one of those methods will introduce real positive change to the workers of those countries, while the other will solely make social justice inclined liberals feel better.

I'm all for standards in trade agreements that advocate for and expand human and workers' rights. I'd say that's essential to fair trade.

I'm more concerned about investor-state agreements and the elevated power transnational corporations have in these so-called free-trade agreements. Corporations tend to have a lot of rights, but very few responsibilities.

Like I said, I'm not for outright protectionism. There are aspects to these things that are beneficial to everyone involved. The problem is they're also used as trojan horses to expand corporate power, often at the expense of labor rights, the poor, and the environment.

 

[Oblivion]

There's still time for Jeb to eke out a surprise upset!

 

[thepotatoman]

I just don't see anyone being nominated in this environment that would lead to those kind of reversals. I think we would get more Roberts-like justices who know that some lines just can't be crossed.

A republican winning would mean the current environment is that basically Republicans can go almost as extreme as they want and can screw with the process however they want and mostly get away with it.

They would get rid of the filibuster instantly, and even if they were smart enough to see that Republicans aren't bullet proof, they'd still have little reason to care about consequences since they know they're screwed by demographic changes in the long term no matter what they do, so they may as well do everything they've always wanted.

 

[FiggyCal]

Sam Harris agrees with Ben Carson on foreign policy. Lol

 

[Daniel B·]

I'm only 28 and listening to Bernie supporters makes me feel like an old man.

I may forever be young at heart, but Bernie's policies are ageless:

• Top to bottom justice reform, to end the seemingly endless, sometimes deadly, mistreatment of African Americans and other minorities
• Automatically register everyone over the age of 18 to vote
• Overturn Citizens-United and enact a Constitutional Amendment to limit money's corrupting influence in politics
• Fully fund VA physical and mental healthcare; if we can't afford to adequately treat our injured war veterans, we shouldn't be sending them to war!
• Pay equity for women
• Using military force as a last resort, and where absolutely necessary, primarily, as part of an international coalition, i.e. we should not be in the business of regime change, especially when the consequences (in Iraq) have proved so disastrous (for all but the military industrial complex). Also, allowing countries in a region to take the lead, and not sacrifice our fellow Americans, never mind the astronomical financial cost, when it quite possibly, shouldn't be our fight in the first place
• End crony-capitalist policies that unduly enrich corporations, at the expense of the American people, such as allowing some giant corporations to pay $0 in corporation tax and giving Big Oil & Gas billions in tax breaks, at a time when they were making record profits ($40 billion vs $1+ trillion)
• A minimum of three months family leave for new mothers
• Moving to a living wage of $15, by 2020
• Policies to safeguard our wonderful planet, for all future generations, such as those to aggressively tackle Global Warming
• Over a five year period, invest a trillion dollars, to put thirteen million Americans back to work, to rebuild and repair our crumbling infrastructure
• Providing universal, single payer healthcare, through MedicAid expansion
• Make public colleges and universities tuition free
• Provide a path to citizenship for the millions of largely hardworking undocumented workers
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall type legislation, that would prevent banks, with investment arms, from using depositor money (FDIC insured?) for speculation
• Close the gun show loophole and re-instate the ban on assault rifles (AR-15 etc)

To pay for all these widely popular policies, in addition to ending crony-capitalism, Bernie proposed a tax on Wall St. speculation and I believe taxing Capital Gains etc at the same rates as regular (for work) income. He has also mentioned increasing the top rate of tax, which I don't agree with (as, when you include State taxes, you might already be paying close to 50% in tax, which seems high enough to me).

Lets say, for arguments sake, that the recent Hillary vs Bernie supporters snapshot I posted, is not, unrepresentative of Bernie's final level of support, thus allowing him to enact all his policies, would that not be an America we could all be proud of? Even if you don't agree with all his policies, do you wholeheartedly agree with most?

And, my guess is 99% of GAFers would end up paying little or no extra tax (EviLore will likely take a hit, but I think he'll be o.k. ; the page views of PoliGAF alone, for the 2016 Presidential cycle, will likely be a nice earner, if we get the potentially epic Sanders vs Trump showdown).

On a personal note, when I was a workaholic, and was earning good coin (as a Software Engineer), although I payed attention to the Chancellors (in UK) tax changes, I was never gagging for a tax cut, perhaps at the expense of someone else, but if the economy was booming, then great. I achieved my dreams (that Lotus Elise 111s Mk1, in racing green, was the nuts) from dedication, hard work and career advancement, and I never thought to vote Conservative, to make my dreams come easier.

 

[Makai]

Most of PoliGAF agrees with Bernie. They make fun of Bernie fans because he would get none of that passed as president.

 

[FiggyCal]

I may forever be young at heart, but Bernie's policies are ageless:

This is all pretty lofty, though I'm sure Bernie is at least in favor of all these things.

 

[Black Mamba]

Every election we have the same thing happen: "If the candidate is Romney/Trump/etc., I'm voting democrat or staying home!"

Then election day comes around and they nearly always vote for the GOP guy. Like clockwork.

1. This goes from the opposite direction, though. Hardcore GOPers saying if a moderate Republican is the candidate, they'll stay home but in the end they don't (Romey, McCain). But that's completely different if it's a hard liner that's on the ballot for moderates. Moderates are far more reasonable and easier to sway from an extremist.

2. We have seen that in elections. Very recently. Besides JBE, there's also Claire McCaskill and the others in 2012 that won because GOPers refused to vote for guys like Akin after the whoke "legitimate rape" bullshit. To say this never happens is ridiculous.

It's also what happened in 2008. A lot of moderate Republicans voted for Obama. And Romney's vote was basically McCains in 2012 with population growth while Obama's shrunk because moderates, whether swing voters, GOPers, or Dems, stayed home more.

We see Republicans win governorship in Mass and California. This shit happens. It's completely wrong to say it doesn't when it does all the time. Even at the Presidential level.

There are people who are consistently Republican that won't vote for Trump. A lot of them. I think you'd see it on election night.

 

[Diablos]

Wait, Trump actually did this?

https://youtu.be/Hlblv6_kYpQ?t=193

 

[Coriolanus]

Most of PoliGAF agrees with Bernie. They make fun of Bernie fans because he would get none of that passed as president.

Which goes for any dem that gets the job, tbqh

 

[BertramCooper]

Daniel B. is basically the Aguirre of PoliGAF.

 

[HylianTom]

The Trump campaign is sending more loud-as-hell signals to GOP leadership:

'Woe Be on Them’: Trump Campaign Lawyer Issues Warning to the RNC

An aide from the Donald Trump presidential campaign warned the Republican National Committee Tuesday against GOP donors pooling funds to coalesce his rivals against him, suggesting that Trump would reverse his pledge not to launch a third-party candidacy if he felt he was being treated unfairly.

Michael Cohen, who serves as special counsel to the billionaire Republican candidate, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that it would be a “bad, bad decision” for super PACs to unite against Trump’s candidacy.

“Donald Trump wants to be treated fairly,” Cohen said sternly. “He will demand the GOP treat him fairly.”

Cohen’s comments came a day after Trump tweeted frustrations with the the Republican Party over former GOP strategist Liz Mair’s proposed efforts to “defeat and destroy” the real estate celebrity’s presidential bid.

“If they treat him fairly, he will honor the pledge because he’s an honorable guy,” Cohen told Cuomo. “If they break that agreement with him, as they say, ‘woe be on them.’”

One of my favorite things about this whole situation is that Trump gets to define the word "fairly." There's no appeal, no litigation, no exploratory process.. if he perceives something as unfair, that's it. He has them by the short hairs here.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The Trump campaign is sending more loud-as-hell signals to GOP leadership:



One of my favorite things about this whole situation is that Trump gets to define the word "fairly." There's no appeal, no litigation, no exploratory process.. if he perceives something as unfair, that's it. He has them by the short hairs here.

what state ballots can he get on without soar losers laws preventing him?

 

[BertramCooper]

Priebus was a dope to even offer that pledge to Trump.

Dude is all about the theater. Nothing would delight him more than tearing up that pledge in front of thousands of people at a campaign rally.