Support NeoGAF

[Angry Fork]

Politics is really how you compromise and pass things. Thats how the budget deal passed. Bernie wants to run for a dictatorship where he doesnt want to politick. Just magically enact laws....or pass edicts.

Or he wants to mobilize democrats to vote for left wing politicians, while Hillary will ask people to support fellow neoliberals like Rahm Emanuel.

 

[Y2Kev]

I hate that there is a failure in both parties to acknowledge that DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS raise standards of living for billions of people around the world, including some Americans. Elections really suck this year on this topic. It's like the Iraq War vote of 2008.

Or he wants to mobilize democrats to vote for left wing politicians, while Hillary will ask people to support fellow neoliberals like Rahm Emanuel.

I don't think he's shown much of a concern for downticket races at all, honestly. He also hasn't done any fundraising for any candidates as far as I know. Maybe they're all neoliberals.

 

[B-Dubs]

What? Your assessment is really lopsided

You don't think the GOP is going to do at least that? John Kerry had a purple heart and they turned that into a negative and it worked. There is no depth that they won't go to, no bar is too low.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I hate that there is a failure in both parties to acknowledge that DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS raise standards of living for billions of people around the world, including some Americans. Elections really suck this year on this topic. It's like the Iraq War vote of 2008.

That's like saying eliminating the Estate Tax increases Wealth in some Americans. It's true but missing the main complaint.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

More than likely. I'm going to vote for either, depending on who wins, and I imagine most people who identify as Liberal would. I don't see how Hillary getting the youth vote by default and Bernie getting the minority vote by default are all that different.

I think it's a closer race than most people give Sanders credit for. If he wins Ohio and does well in Illinois and Florida, it will probably still be a gap of 200 delegates, which is way better than most people said he would do 3 months ago. After the 15th we have 5/8 of the next contests being Caucuses, and they are all states that favor Sanders.

Bernie's poised to win at least 12 of the next 15 contests that happen after the 15th. The margins by which he wins them will determine how the race is being talked about when May rolls around, I'd imagine.

 

[Suikoguy]

I never said they liked Sanders, I said they despise Hillary more than Sanders, and will continue to do so. Nonetheless Trump has so far been running relatively liberal on economic positions (compared to his rivals, preserving social security, anti-trade agreements, "bringing our jobs back" etc.).

Not saying he actually believes any of that obviously but there's occasionally some overlap with Sanders in a rejection of neoliberalism except Sanders is further left. Trump doesn't really appeal as much to the libertarian/ayn rand complete anti-welfare people. The nazi's did the same in that they were extremely right wing socially but also created a welfare state (for "aryans" only obviously).

If you really think Republicans would hate Sanders less, you really know nothing about politics. The reason they remain silent about him other then the very rare mention is THEY WANT TO FACE HIM IN THE ELECTION. Because the attacks actually somewhat fit their narrative for once, the hate would be off the charts. Your hate of Hillary is clouding your ability to make rational judgement, or your lack of political experience is showing. Is this your first election?

As I stated, he's actually given a shit about the community for decades longer. It makes him feel far more genuine than Hillary who has only jumped on when it was okay by the majority for her to do so. And unlike any other fucking Democrat he actually gave a shit about trans-individuals even decades back. It's not revisionist. It's me stating the blatant facts.

Also, a little history:
"By all measures, Sanders was ahead of his time in supporting gay rights. In 1983, as mayor of Burlington, he signed a Gay Pride Day proclamation calling it a civil rights issue. He was one of just 67 members in the House of Representatives to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, a politically tough decision he prides himself on and points to as a key progressive bona fide. Sanders opposed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993, another President Bill Clinton-era policy, and supported civil unions in Vermont in 2000."

Which just only starts to cover how he has been on the matter. Suffice it to say, he has been a supporter/pushed for legislation in many manners far earlier than most Democrats. Not all but most. And easily way before Hillary ever came around to the issue. He has spoken passionately for us on the Senate floor even back in the mid 90s when it was unpopular to do so. Given the options, I much rather support him than her on the matter.

Sanders voted against DOMA since he said it should be a states rights issue. Yes, the candidate that wants the federal government to have more power than any candidate before him thought it should be up to the states.

 

[User1608]

Hillary has to be the wall that prevents fascism from coming to America so I hope she quits fucking up with these stupid gaffes. Trump has to be stopped.

Agreed. This is fucking terrifying.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Bernie's poised to win at least 12 of the next 15 contests that happen after the 15th. The margins by which he wins them will determine how the race is being talked about when May rolls around, I'd imagine.

I would say it's more like 10/15 looking at the schedule--I think NY might be closer than people think, but Clinton will handily win NC and Missouri, Sanders takes Ohio/Arizona/Idaho/Alaska/Washington/Wisconsin/Utah/Wyoming, and Florida/Illinois are within 10 points each. If Sanders can get major wins in Washington, Ohio, and Wisconsin, he'll be looking good going into NY.

If you really think Republicans would hate Sanders less, you really know nothing about politics. The reason they remain silent about him other then the very rare mention is THEY WANT TO FACE HIM IN THE ELECTION. Because the attacks actually somewhat fit their narrative for once, the hate would be off the charts. Your hate of Hillary is clouding your ability to make rational judgement, or your lack of political experience is showing. Is this your first election?

Or, people will subconsciously think that they said the exact same shit about Obama and he wasn't so bad.

 

[Officerrob]

Or he wants to mobilize democrats to vote for left wing politicians, while Hillary will ask people to support fellow neoliberals like Rahm Emanuel.

Bernie has done jack shit for down ticket democrats, and it's one of my biggest problems with him

 

[RustyNails]

Or he wants to mobilize democrats to vote for left wing politicians, while Hillary will ask people to support fellow neoliberals like Rahm Emanuel.

Splendid job so far! Pray tell, how many state senators, aldermen, councilmen, congressmen and US senators are riding down a Sanders wave ticket downballot? Circuit judges? County boards? Health officials? He needs these people to be mobilized and run, in order for the agenda to pass, no?

 

[BanGy.nz]

queen

Baby Queen

 

[B-Dubs]

Or, people will subconsciously think that they said the exact same shit about Obama and he wasn't so bad.

They didn't have video of Obama admitting it. Also he flat-out denied it.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Or, people will subconsciously think that they said the exact same shit about Obama and he wasn't so bad.

there is a video.

 

[Y2Kev]

That's like saying eliminating the Estate Tax increases Wealth in some Americans. It's true but missing the main complaint.

If the estate tax was pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, maybe I'd be for it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's like saying eliminating the Estate Tax increases Wealth in some Americans. It's true but missing the main complaint.

Its not.

I'd say its really hard to say trade deals like NAFTA and the EU common market aren't a net positive on the world by far.

They help far more than they hurt.

What opposing them often comes down to is a desire for protectionism which has been disastrous whenever its applied.


I mean there are some improvements to be made in the realm of things like drugs and democracy subverting measures but that's not the vast majority of these deals. Lowing tariffs is good and so simplifying rules so trade can more easily cross boarders. (To be fair I'm in favor of more open boarders all around, including people)

 

[royalan]

Or he wants to mobilize democrats to vote for left wing politicians, while Hillary will ask people to support fellow neoliberals like Rahm Emanuel.

Does he? Because nothing about his campaign is producing this result.

Nor is he doing anything to help down-ticket dems.

The political revolution is Bernie's own ego at this point.

 

[ivysaur12]

As I stated, he's actually given a shit about the community for decades longer. It makes him feel far more genuine than Hillary who has only jumped on when it was okay by the majority for her to do so. And unlike any other fucking Democrat he actually gave a shit about trans-individuals even decades back. It's not revisionist. It's me stating the blatant facts.

Also, a little history:
"By all measures, Sanders was ahead of his time in supporting gay rights. In 1983, as mayor of Burlington, he signed a Gay Pride Day proclamation calling it a civil rights issue. He was one of just 67 members in the House of Representatives to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, a politically tough decision he prides himself on and points to as a key progressive bona fide. Sanders opposed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993, another President Bill Clinton-era policy, and supported civil unions in Vermont in 2000."

"In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state had to guarantee protections and benefits to gay couples, a stop short of legalizing gay marriage. Sanders approved of the decision."

Which just only starts to cover how he has been on the matter. Suffice it to say, he has been a supporter/pushed for legislation in many manners far earlier than most Democrats. Not all but most. And easily way before Hillary ever came around to the issue. He has spoken passionately for us on the Senate floor even back in the mid 90s when it was unpopular to do so. Given the options, I much rather support him than her on the matter.

Okay, but your facts also obscure some VERY necessary context:

-- Bernie did vote against DOMA. He did not profess to do so because of his love of LGBT individuals. He did so because of federalist reasons in his floor speech.

-- Hillary Clinton also expressed support for Civil Unions in 2000:

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

A little history:

-- Here's Bernie singing a pledge in 1982 supporting "traditional" marriage:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view

-- Here's Bernie saying in the 90s that he wouldn't support an LGBT nondiscrimination bill as mayor:

Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights, which W.J. Conroy recounts in his book Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington. When serving as mayor of Burlington, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.”

-- Here's Bernie in 2006 saying he was comfortable with "civil unions", not marriage equality. Video in the link saying it's a "state issue":

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.

-- Let's also not forget he said that Vermont shouldn't legalize gay marriage and was the last member of the VT caucus to support marriage equality:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-has-evolved-same-sex-marriage-too-n454081

Six years later, when the George W. Bush Administration was pushing an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, Sanders dismissed the move as "divisive." But asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, Sanders said "not right now; not after what we went through."

Again, "what about Hillary?!" -- Hillary has HUGE blindspots here. But so does Bernie! Neither of these people have been great on gay rights until recently!

 

[Angry Fork]

I hate that there is a failure in both parties to acknowledge that DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS raise standards of living for billions of people around the world, including some Americans. Elections really suck this year on this topic. It's like the Iraq War vote of 2008.

This argument is brought up a lot. Basically that working as a slave for pennies in a sweatshop is better than not working or something. And there's no alternative to this. It's a really bad and immoral side to take. There's a direct line between this and lowering taxes for "job creators". Both stem from the rising tide lifts all boats myth.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I hate that there is a failure in both parties to acknowledge that DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS raise standards of living for billions of people around the world, including some Americans.

Too nuanced. Need it to be bite sized digestible. Billion people out of abject poverty is also irrelevant since they aren't Americans.

Although I guess everyone also ignores the impact on standard of living from lower cost goods.

 

[Y2Kev]

This argument is brought up a lot. Basically that working as a slave for pennies in a sweatshop is better than not working or something. And there's no alternative to this. It's a really bad and immoral side to take. There's a direct line between this and lowering taxes for "job creators". Both stem from the rising tide lifts all boats myth.

OK, I don't agree that free trade necessarily means sweatshops. The cost of labor in international markets is dramatically lower without starving people. Free traders need not apologize for immoral corporate practices.

But yes, it's true. Making pennies when the purchasing power of those pennies is meaningful is better than not making pennies.

I don't see how this is at all like lowering taxes on job creators. There's no evidence to suggest tax cuts lead to economic growth beyond a reasonable tax rate. There's plenty of evidence to suggest free trade lifts people out of poverty. Linking the two is ideological overreach, IMO.

 

[neurosisxeno]

They didn't have video of Obama admitting it. Also he flat-out denied it.

They hacked together plenty of videos that made their way around Conservative media. They tried to prove he was Un-American, that he wasn't born in this country, that he was a Socialist, that he was a Muslim--literally anything they thought might be a negative. And he still won 2 elections and maintains a fairly neutral favorability rating.

If the estate tax was pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, maybe I'd be for it.

You could argue NAFTA put at least thousands (maybe millions) of American's into poverty.

I'd say its really hard to say trade deals like NAFTA and the EU common market aren't a net positive on the world by far.

They help far more than they hurt.

I don't deny that, but the issue is who they help. Our country is doing well, but most middle and working class families are still hurting. The economy recovered just fine but nobody outside of businesses and the very wealthy are feeling that way. Trade Deals that potentially siphon even more wealth from the American Middle and Working Class should be heavily criticized.

 

[Poodlestrike]

This argument is brought up a lot. Basically that working as a slave for pennies in a sweatshop is better than not working or something. And there's no alternative to this. It's a really bad and immoral side to take. There's a direct line between this and lowering taxes for "job creators". Both stem from the rising tide lifts all boats myth.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yeah, working in a sweatshop for pennies a day really is better than starving to death in a ditch, which was, until recently, the only real alternative. This shit does work. Abject poverty is down, and enormously so. A rising tide, absent restrictive factors, really does lift all boats. The problem is when free trade is not in fact free, or when these agreements have other factors in them that subvert democracy and so on and so forth.

 

[i_am_ben]

I don't disagree, but it's not meaningful. If Hillary wins the nomination, she would get the youth vote.

She'll get most of the youth vote. Hopefully it is enough.

However, a lot of young people (ie Bernie supporters) will simply refuse to vote for her because she's not their first choice. Young people can be awfully idealistic, and they've not had to compromise their core beliefs to the same extent as older people have.

In 2008, it was different as it was older people who compromised for Obama. This time who knows. The vitriol is being rampped up every day.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This argument is brought up a lot. Basically that working as a slave for pennies in a sweatshop is better than not working or something. And there's no alternative to this. It's a really bad and immoral side to take. There's a direct line between this and lowering taxes for "job creators". Both stem from the rising tide lifts all boats myth.

First of all its not pennies in sweatshops. Its people in mexico, africa, asia who are making decent wages relative to their purchasing power. Why do you think cell phone usage has increased tremendously? Because they're better off.

Less people are dying
People are living longer
Family Size is decreasing
Desease is going down

These are all quantifiable improvements.

 

[Ekai]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that status quote is inherently a bad thing, especially when status quo IS progress. Obama may not have been able to tackle everything, but he got us started on the path. Hillary will continue down that path. And she has the political know-how and allies to make it happen. Bernie does not. Bernie is a lone wolf. Lone wolves don't get shit done in politics.

That's funny as I've already stated that's a blatant lie spread by some Hillary supporters. Bernie has already worked across the aisle numerous times. He is liked/at least tolerated by Republicans far more than Hillary even has been. I believe he'd be more able to work across the aisle. He isn't new to the game. He's been in politics for quite a while. With how much she is hated by Republicans, I just see more standstills. I agree she is hated for blatantly unfair reasons but I can't see it working in the current climate. There's too much hatred surrounding her by Republicans and their base. Working with her now would be nothing but political suicide in some eyes on the right.

As for her continuing down that path, no, sorry, I don't buy it. I want to, but I don't. She's going to keep things the same, which is great in some regards. But more needs to be done and I don't believe she's going to do that. Agree to disagree, I guess.

You've posted this like four times now in the last half hour, so let's dig into it.

Here's Hillary's position on income inequality: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/

I don't think it's changed much in the past nine months.

Do you have substantive critiques of it? Or are you really just trying to say that you don't trust her?

It's good, generally speaking. But she doesn't really talk about the issue at all in debates. And when it comes up, her responses don't extrapolate on the matter much at all. And given how far in bed she is with some corporations, I have difficulty believing she will do everything she says here. It'd be wonderful and I want to be wrong on that but I simply don't trust her as much on the matter. Too many Democrats now have claimed to be for fighting income inequality but haven't done shit for it while being in the pocket of those who contribute to the problem.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You could argue NAFTA put at least thousands (maybe millions) of American's into poverty.

I'd like to see receipts but this goes into the next point...

I don't deny that, but the issue is who they help. Our country is doing well, but most middle and working class families are still hurting. The economy recovered just fine but nobody outside of businesses and the very wealthy are feeling that way.

This isn't the fault of trade deals. Its the fault of decreased regulation, the decline of labor unions (do to the government not protecting workers rights and the labor movements slow move towards the new economy), and decreased government spending.

Not the fact that its much cheaper to import a car.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

 

[neurosisxeno]

This isn't the fault of trade deals. Its the fault of decreased regulation, the decline of labor unions (do to the government not protecting workers rights and the labor movements slow move towards the new economy), and decreased government spending.

Not the fact that its much cheaper to import a car.

When the plants that made those cars housed tens of thousands of Unionized Americans were shut down so they could build equivalent plants in Mexico I beg to differ.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

This is why I love hillary. She is able to take in new information and change.

I don't want a doctrinaire, I want a smart person who can listen.

 

[Basileus777]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

Good response. I'm glad she owned up to this and put out a good message.

 

[royalan]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yeah, working in a sweatshop for pennies a day really is better than starving to death in a ditch, which was, until recently, the only real alternative. This shit does work. Abject poverty is down, and enormously so. A rising tide, absent restrictive factors, really does lift all boats. The problem is when free trade is not in fact free, or when these agreements have other factors in them that subvert democracy and so on and so forth.

Now we just need to find the person who can break this down into edible 30-second bite sizes, and prep Hillary on delivering it.

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

I'm okay with this, though it would've been better to call out the Reagans for laughing at dead and dying Americans.

 

[RastaMentality]

Good response. It's also very clear she doesn't want to offend the Reagans lol.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

Much better

 

[Y2Kev]

When the plants that made those cars housed tens of thousands of Unionized Americans were shut down so they could build equivalent plants in Mexico I beg to differ.

This country is wealthy enough that we should be focusing on ways to support those workers find new jobs in other industries, including with financial assistance until they find new jobs, and not on protecting our industries with protectionism mechanisms that create deadweight losses.

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, we have had net job growth in the country (controlled for population growth) since it became our policy. This country does a ton of bad shit, like cutting unemployment insurance, allowing our public school system to crumble, and wasting political capital on fighting globalization, when we should be focusing on making sure every American successfully transitions into a 21st century job of the future.

And you can vote for me in 2032.

 

[Tesseract]

Hillary's full statement on her stupid Reagan comment:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/...rted-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.g383t2o7h

Okay

 

[VendettaRed07]

Good response. It's also very clear she doesn't want to offend the Reagans lol.

Long play for Ron Reagan as VP

 

[The Technomancer]

This country is wealthy enough that we should be focusing on ways to support those workers find new jobs in other industries, including with financial assistance until they find new jobs, and not on protecting our industries with protectionism mechanisms that create deadweight losses.

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, we have had net job growth in the country (controlled for population growth) since it became our policy. This country does a ton of bad shit, like cutting unemployment insurance, allowing our public school system to crumble, and wasting political capital on fighting globalization, when we should be focusing on making sure every American successfully transitions into a 21st century job of the future.

And you can vote for me in 2032.

This. That globalization brought wealth back into the US. The problem is that it all got clogged at the top instead of being used to help everyone

 

[ivysaur12]

Hillary ❤️S Truvada

 

[shinra-bansho]

That's way too rational a position to get elected Kev.

 

[VendettaRed07]

This country is wealthy enough that we should be focusing on ways to support those workers find new jobs in other industries, including with financial assistance until they find new jobs, and not on protecting our industries with protectionism mechanisms that create deadweight losses.

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, we have had net job growth in the country (controlled for population growth) since it became our policy. This country does a ton of bad shit, like cutting unemployment insurance, allowing our public school system to crumble, and wasting political capital on fighting globalization, when we should be focusing on making sure every American successfully transitions into a 21st century job of the future.

And you can vote for me in 2032.

But I can't put that into a sound bite so it isn't true

 

[RustyNails]

Hillary Clinton
Wife, mom, grandma, women+kids advocate, FLOTUS, Senator, SecState, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, 2016 presidential candidate.

Whats bernie's tag on medium?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

When the plants that made those cars housed tens of thousands of Unionized Americans were shut down so they could build equivalent plants in Mexico I beg to differ.

First of all there still is a huge auto industry in the US

and secondly you can't just put up walls or keep up walls because markets change. Think about all the typewriter manufactures! The horse and buggy workers!

Again this is a failure of the country and states to a) create a competitive advantage (instead of relying on mexicos protectionism) or b) develop new industries or retrain workers.

I have plenty of time to talk about things like corporate governance, loss of soverignity, problems with medicine or IP law with trade critics. But the fact that industries change? I think that's a really a non-starter

 

[pigeon]

I recall reading something along the lines of people wanting to disassociate themselves with the GOP post Bush. But they still reliably vote GOP.

I'm not sure if the same holds for lib, mod, con identification though.

So here's the article on independent voter myths:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

It doesn't include the breakdown to true swing voters that I remembered -- that must've been a different article. But it does make the point that independent voters just don't decide elections.

I hate that there is a failure in both parties to acknowledge that DISASTROUS TRADE DEALS raise standards of living for billions of people around the world, including some Americans. Elections really suck this year on this topic. It's like the Iraq War vote of 2008.

I am legit angry about this. If the only thing Bernie Sanders does this year is legitimize being anti-free trade by making it look like a bipartisan issue, he will already have done severe and lasting damage to the future of Americans, especially including the very low-income and middle-income Americans he claims to be fighting for.

This country is wealthy enough that we should be focusing on ways to support those workers find new jobs in other industries, including with financial assistance until they find new jobs, and not on protecting our industries with protectionism mechanisms that create deadweight losses.

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, we have had net job growth in the country (controlled for population growth) since it became our policy. This country does a ton of bad shit, like cutting unemployment insurance, allowing our public school system to crumble, and wasting political capital on fighting globalization, when we should be focusing on making sure every American successfully transitions into a 21st century job of the future.

And you can vote for me in 2032.

All of this is well-put and 100% correct so why don't you post it more so that I don't have to fight about free trade by myself all the time?

STOP MAKING ME BAIL YOU OUT, WALL STREET

 

[neurosisxeno]

This country is wealthy enough that we should be focusing on ways to support those workers find new jobs in other industries, including with financial assistance until they find new jobs, and not on protecting our industries with protectionism mechanisms that create deadweight losses.

Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA, we have had net job growth in the country (controlled for population growth) since it became our policy. This country does a ton of bad shit, like cutting unemployment insurance, allowing our public school system to crumble, and wasting political capital on fighting globalization, when we should be focusing on making sure every American successfully transitions into a 21st century job of the future.

I agree, but we can't pass all of these deals that negatively impact American families until we tackle those issues. Do you want to be holding an IOU for the American Middle Class in 20 years? Because I sure don't. We need to focus on improving the lives of our own citizens before we start helping others. I would argue we have been doing very little to "fight globalization" considering just about every major trade deal that has been proposed has passed regardless of concerns or objections from the American people. I could not agree more that adequate education and job training are necessary for 21st Century Jobs, but do we want to educate and train our citizens now or just replace them and hope the problem just works itself out in the mean time?

The job of the President is to look out for the interests of the American people, not to do his or her best to improve the lives of every living person. While that is an admirable goal, it's just not realistic considering the problems we face currently.

And you can vote for me in 2032.

I'll see you in the Primaries.

Whats bernie's tag on medium?

Angry man yelling at Clouds.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Opposition to free trade often reminds me of the FYIGM attitude about the wealth and taxes.

 

[Ekai]

If you really think Republicans would hate Sanders less, you really know nothing about politics. The reason they remain silent about him other then the very rare mention is THEY WANT TO FACE HIM IN THE ELECTION. Because the attacks actually somewhat fit their narrative for once, the hate would be off the charts. Your hate of Hillary is clouding your ability to make rational judgement, or your lack of political experience is showing. Is this your first election?



Sanders voted against DOMA since he said it should be a states rights issue. Yes, the candidate that wants the federal government to have more power than any candidate before him thought it should be up to the states.

They aren't silent on him and have literally been fine with him for years on years now. Why are you rewriting/ignoring history for your conspiracy theories? Is this your first election? Do you have any political experience? Hillary is hated far more by Republicans than Bernie has ever been. He could have a far easier time reaching across the aisle given the past.

Can you please fricking read the nuance and details of my post? I prefer Bernie to Hillary because 1) He appears far more genuine on the matter and has supported the LGBT community for far longer than her and in numerous ways. She only did so when it was popular to. 2) He actually gave a shit about trans-individuals when literally no one else did. To this day it's still unpopular and Hillary could barely even acknowledge our existence.

Okay, but your facts also obscure some VERY necessary context:

-- Bernie did vote against DOMA. He did not profess to do so because of his love of LGBT individuals. He did so because of federalist reasons in his floor speech.

-- Hillary Clinton also expressed support for Civil Unions in 2000:

A little history:

-- Here's Bernie singing a pledge in 1982 supporting "traditional" marriage:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view

-- Here's Bernie saying in the 90s that he wouldn't support an LGBT nondiscrimination bill as mayor:

-- Here's Bernie in 2006 saying he was comfortable with "civil unions", not marriage equality. Video in the link saying it's a "state issue":

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html



-- Let's also not forget he said that Vermont shouldn't legalize gay marriage and was the last member of the VT caucus to support marriage equality:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-has-evolved-same-sex-marriage-too-n454081



Again, "what about Hillary?!" -- Hillary has HUGE blindspots here. But so does Bernie! Neither of these people have been great on gay rights until recently!

-I'm aware.

-She still said some pretty damning things before and after that time til at least late 2004.

-Unlike her he at least supported LGBT individuals in other matters and helped them express themselves. I agree he hasn't been the best in regards to same-sex marriage but unlike others, he at least gave a fuck for us in some ways.

-Hell in the 90s he gave a passionate speech on DODT and the rights and lives of LGBT citizens who laid down their lives for the country.

I know the states' issue thing already. I'm not claiming he's perfect but I sure as hell trust him far more than I ever have her on the matter.

Except Bernie literally never said that Vermont shouldn't legalize gay marriage. He stated it was a states rights issue and then remained silent on the matter for a while. I'm not saying it's right that he did but frankly speaking his overall record on LGBT is far stronger than Hillary's ever was.

And as I said, he actually gave a damn about trans-individuals far earlier than Hillary's recent "oh, I guess you people exist" stance a few months ago. And given the history of the LGBT movement, anyone who gives a damn about trans-individuals is already more trustworthy to me than those who characterize it as a movement solely for gay cis-men. Which is frankly how Hillary has read til extremely recently. And that characterization comes about because of what happened when the movement was co-opted and our rights, plights, and suffering were shoved under the bus. The movement WAS about everyone. I want it to be about everyone. That changed and to this day I still feel like I am shoved under the bus. I don't trust that Hillary won't continue to shove me under.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I believe there should be some protections and safety nets in regards to free trade that we haven't done.

But Bernies trade policy seems to me he would implement stuff like in Brazil where ps4s cost $2000 if it were up to him

 

[pigeon]

I agree, but we can't pass all of these deals that negatively impact American families until we tackle those issues. Do you want to be holding an IOU for the American Middle Class in 20 years? Because I sure don't. We need to focus on improving the lives of our own citizens before we start helping others.

Trade deals improve the lives of every American. Trade deals are how millions of Americans afford food and furniture. Trade deals are almost certainly enabling you to write this post on an internet message board.

I would argue we have been doing very little to "fight globalization" considering just about every major trade deal that has been proposed has passed regardless of concerns or objections from the American people.

Everything that ever happens in American government happens regardless of objections from the American people (by which you mean, of course, objections from the special interest groups that will be negatively affected by whatever thing is happening). Generally it doesn't mean it's wrong, it means governing a democracy is a series of messy compromises in which some people are negatively affected, because, contra Bernie Sanders, the world is a complicated place with difficult problems to solve.

 

[Y2Kev]

I agree, but we can't pass all of these deals that negatively impact American families until we tackle those issues. Do you want to be holding an IOU for the American Middle Class in 20 years? Because I sure don't. We need to focus on improving the lives of our own citizens before we start helping others. I would argue we have been doing very little to "fight globalization" considering just about every major trade deal that has been proposed has passed regardless of concerns or objections from the American people. I could not agree more that adequate education and job training are necessary for 21st Century Jobs, but do we want to educate and train our citizens now or just replace them and hope the problem just works itself out in the mean time?

The job of the President is to look out for the interests of the American people, not to do his or her best to improve the lives of every living person. While that is an admirable goal, it's just not realistic considering the problems we face currently.



I'll see you in the Primaries.



Angry man yelling at Clouds.

But trade deals do help Americans. Like really significantly. But I think it's a lot easier to quantify someone losing their job than like an American being able to buy grapefruits at an affordable price. Or clothes costing a fraction of what they used to 20 years ago...which really blows my mind! I can't believe how cheap clothes are these days!

Obviously that's really bad for american seamsters. But really good for American consumers.

I'm in favor of doing everything at once.