The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

She lied constantly. SHe was overly arrogant. She was entitled.

Thank god we elected a president who does none of those things. Dodged a bullet there.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

Thank god we elected a president who does none of those things. Dodged a bullet there.

This is why I didn't vote for either. My choice of Johnson might have been questionable for other reasons, but he wasn't really any of the above.

Unfortunately something like 95% of yall voted for one or the other idiot.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This is why I didn't vote for either. My choice of Johnson might have been questionable for other reasons, but he wasn't really any of the above.

Unfortunately something like 95% of yall voted for one or the other idiot.

Hillary wasn't nearly progressive enough for me, it disgusts me that she was so very late to come around on things like gay marriage. But I agreed with much of her platform and was proud to vote for her, not just as an anti-trump vote.

But thanks to the electoral college this is all weird and strategic anyway. You live in CA, you can vote for whoever you feel you align with best, or just stay home. Its really irrelevant. I lived in North Carolina in 2016 and that state was expected to be close. A vote for a 3rd party there from a left leaning individual is really a vote for trump. I live in Indiana now. Might as well write in one of my cats, its about as useful as any other vote I can make in this state.

The realities of our first past the post voting system are that the system is designed to give us the worst results possible, leading to an environment where it is literally impossible for a 3rd party to thrive, and where for the vast majority of the country, there are zero voting options that algin with their actual beliefs, and the real value in your vote is to vote against the worst candidate. But any changes that could be proposed to improve that system would be perceived to be more beneficial to one party, and the other would fight it so we'll never improve.

[larrymcg421]

I'm better than you because I voted third party. Haven't seen those in a while, but now twice in the last two pages.

[spleen1015]

@Radii - Indiana went blue in 2008. Maybe we can do it again to save ourselves from Trump.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As far as I can tell, its just words of support for opposition and vague threats to Maduro.

I don't want boots on the ground but would be supportive of funneling money, providing some sort of guarantees to military defectors etc. All this may be happening behind the scenes. I do think we could up the rhetoric some and continuously.

At this point it's all but over, but we were offering guarantees to top officials, and I'd be very surprised if we weren't funding the opposition. Bolton was tweeting to three guys yesterday offering them guarantees of no prosecution.

[Edward64]

FWIW. Stock market is up approx 30+% with the Trump presidency. Checked my 401k/IRA and yup, feeling pretty good right now.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/polit...020/index.html

President Donald Trump hits a new high on his economic approval ratings in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, reaching 56% of Americans saying he's doing a good job on the economy.

The result comes on the heels of the announcement that the US economy grew at a much better rate than expected in the first quarter, and Trump's performance on the economy becomes one of his prime selling points for next year's general election.

Trump's previous high mark in CNN polling on handling the economy came in March 2017 when 55% approved. Since then, he's edged above 50% four times, but this is the first time it's been meaningfully over the 50% line.
White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney spelled out Trump's 2020 economic message on Tuesday -- suggesting voters would still be willing to support the President even if they don't like him personally.

"You hate to sound like a cliché, but are you better off than you were four years ago? It's pretty simple, right? It's the economy, stupid. I think that's easy. People will vote for somebody they don't like if they think it's good for them," Mulvaney said during a talk at the Milken conference in Los Angeles.

The economy is the President's best issue tested in the new poll, with his other approval ratings all below 50%. Even among those who disapprove of the way the president is handling his job generally, 20% say they approve of his work on the economy. That's larger than crossover approval for any other issue by 12 points.

The President's approval rating on the economy dipped to 48% earlier this year on the heels of the government shutdown.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At this point it's all but over, but we were offering guarantees to top officials, and I'd be very surprised if we weren't funding the opposition. Bolton was tweeting to three guys yesterday offering them guarantees of no prosecution.

All but over meaning Maduro is gone or opposition will win?

[JPhillips]

Coup's happen fast or not at all. It's very hard to see how this ends up with Maduro gone now that he has institutional and international support. He could lose a civil war, but he's not going anywhere peacefully now.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The order of 3-4-5 may change but the top 5 so far are:

Economy, Countering China, Energy Independence, Healthcare & Immigration

What are yours?

1-5 is "not being a fucking idiot".

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm better than you because I voted third party. Haven't seen those in a while, but now twice in the last two pages.

Deal with it, smarty pants.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think I'm better than anyone because I voted third party, but I'll be darned if I'm going to let others determine my vote which is what's always implied with the nonsense about voting third party being a vote for Trump, etc. A vote should be about what you support, not what other people are supporting. I totally disagree that it's impossible for a third party to succeed. It's not likely to happen because of the number of people who buy into the binary lesser-of-two-evils illogic, but that's primarily the fault of those people, not the system itself. Continuing to vote only for the two dominant parties does nothing more than ensure their continued dominance. Which is fine if they are doing their job reasonably well, but if they're not - well, you either tell them it's ok to not do their job or stop supporting them.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Was H. Clinton a historically unlikable candidate because she was H. Clinton, or is the GOP/Fox machine well-oiled enough such that any Dem candidate will be as unlikable as Clinton by the time the election rolls around?

The first one. Hillary had high unlikeable numbers as far back as when Bill was POTUS. Even if you think that's unfair, it's still what her history of support is. It's possible the Democrats will find an equally unlikeable candidate, but they'd have to really work at it.

[spleen1015]

At first glance, HRC has that 'bitchy mother-in-law' look and that impression never goes away.

[Brian Swartz]

FYI my #1 is character, #2 is giving a darn about the rule of law, everything else comes after that because none of it matters much if those two aren't in place - you can say what you want but if you aren't willing to respect the system with integrity then you'll just do whatever appears most beneficial to you at the moment, which of course we've seen over multiple administrations. Trump is still in the 'wouldn't support him for dogcatcher' box - he's actually been a little bit worse than I expected and I expected very little. I'm open to voting Democratic but I think it's highly unlikely they put someone up that could in good conscience support based esp. on #2, so therefore I'll likely be looking for the least-bad write-in I can. In my state you can't just write in anyone and have it counted, the SOS has a limited list of those allowed based on whether they meet the requirements. I think there were six options last time.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW. Stock market is up approx 30+% with the Trump presidency. Checked my 401k/IRA and yup, feeling pretty good right now.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/polit...020/index.html

Is it worth it if you're running trillion dollar deficits when the economy is actually doing good?

Shouldn't you be getting ahead when the getting is good, not blowing up?

No, you spend when you have money, you don't spend when you don't, that's it, right? Because that works out so well to keep an economy going.

I'm sure it'll all be fine and there will be no repercussions at all.

[PilotMan]

I wonder if we'll just send in some military advisors, just to help protect (with guidance and intelligence) the 'legitimate' leader of Venezuela? That's never lead to anything bad before has it?

[QuikSand]

Well, this happened too

Stephen Moore withdraws candidacy for Fed position | Financial Times

The shame of it is, he is patently unfit for the job on competency grounds, but likely would have sailed to easy confirmation if it hadn't been for him saying (and believing) enough batshit crazy stupid stuff to make even what passes for the GOP cringe.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think I'm better than anyone because I voted third party, but I'll be darned if I'm going to let others determine my vote which is what's always implied with the nonsense about voting third party being a vote for Trump, etc. A vote should be about what you support, not what other people are supporting. I totally disagree that it's impossible for a third party to succeed. It's not likely to happen because of the number of people who buy into the binary lesser-of-two-evils illogic, but that's primarily the fault of those people, not the system itself. Continuing to vote only for the two dominant parties does nothing more than ensure their continued dominance. Which is fine if they are doing their job reasonably well, but if they're not - well, you either tell them it's ok to not do their job or stop supporting them.

With first past the post, at best you'll get a replacement for one of the two major parties. It just doesn't work to have two parties with similar policy stances on major issues, eventually, those two parties split the vote and the party with opposing stances wins. That's just the way the system works. A multi-party process would require structural reforms that change our system of elections.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Well, this happened too

Stephen Moore withdraws candidacy for Fed position | Financial Times

The shame of it is, he is patently unfit for the job on competency grounds, but likely would have sailed to easy confirmation if it hadn't been for him saying (and believing) enough batshit crazy stupid stuff to make even what passes for the GOP cringe.

And he probably would have sailed if Cain stayed in so that Moore could be seen as the "qualified" candidate in comparison to Cain.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

at best you'll get a replacement for one of the two major parties. It just doesn't work to have two parties with similar policy stances on major issues, eventually, those two parties split the vote and the party with opposing stances wins

If they have similar policy stances on major issues, why the need for a third party in the first place? Isn't the whole point that they would need to be distinctive in some significant way?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If they have similar policy stances on major issues, why the need for a third party in the first place? Isn't the whole point that they would need to be distinctive in some significant way?

If Democrats are socially liberal and fiscally liberal, Republicans are socially conservative and fiscally conservative, and Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, the Libertarian candidate could peel votes from both parties.

Then it comes down to what are the main issues of the day.

Regarding structural reforms necessary, if there was enough pressure, any of these could be overturned. The bigger issue is the two main parties have brainwashed the masses that they are an either/or proposition. The people that are in power want to play by their own rules and the way they do so is by throwing up unnecessarily large barriers to entry into their game.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Is it worth it if you're running trillion dollar deficits when the economy is actually doing good?

Shouldn't you be getting ahead when the getting is good, not blowing up?

No, you spend when you have money, you don't spend when you don't, that's it, right? Because that works out so well to keep an economy going.

I'm sure it'll all be fine and there will be no repercussions at all.

I don't disagree.

Did Obama reduce the deficit when the economy was doing good after the GR ended in 2009 or even in his second term? Do you believe Hillary would have also reduced the deficit with a good economy? Honestly I don't think so. So call me jaded, if we are going to have deficits, I'll take it with a stock market doing well.

[stevew]

Fiscally conservative Republicans...hilarious

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't disagree.

Did Obama reduce the deficit when the economy was doing good after the GR ended in 2009 or even in his second term? Do you believe Hillary would have also reduced the deficit with a good economy? Honestly I don't think so. So call me jaded, if we are going to have deficits, I'll take it with a stock market doing well.

Yes, the deficit did go down substantially during his term. It sounds like you are conflating a year to year deficit with the overall debt. They are two different things. A lower deficit will still cause the overall debt to rise.

[larrymcg421]

I'd certainly be more open to third parties if we had proportional representation or ranked choice (like in Maine), but even then, the Libertarians are non-starters because of their fiscal conservatism (and even their social liberalism is a "we're not against gay marriage, but it should be decided by the states") and the leftist third parties are filled with nutcases who wouldn't have a clue how to get anything done.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If they have similar policy stances on major issues, why the need for a third party in the first place? Isn't the whole point that they would need to be distinctive in some significant way?

But on a lot of issues there isn't a third position that appeals to many voters. What's the third party position on abortion that isn't already close to the position of the Dems or GOP?

Gun control?

Social Security?

Taxes?

Most issues, for most voters come down to more or less, so where is the space for a third party that doesn't either make it more likely that the opposite position wins orthat one party replaces another and things return to two parties?

At best I think a third party can change the focus, but when a third party champions an issue that is largely being ignored, eventually one of the two major parties will take on a similar position as the third party.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by stevew

Fiscally conservative Republicans...hilarious

Yep. When was the last time we had a Republican president that didn't run up the deficit?

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I wonder if we'll just send in some military advisors, just to help protect (with guidance and intelligence) the 'legitimate' leader of Venezuela? That's never lead to anything bad before has it?

Syria, Western Hemisphere style! Joy.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

A vote should be about what you support, not what other people are supporting. I totally disagree that it's impossible for a third party to succeed. It's not likely to happen because of the number of people who buy into the binary lesser-of-two-evils illogic, but that's primarily the fault of those people, not the system itself. Continuing to vote only for the two dominant parties does nothing more than ensure their continued dominance. Which is fine if they are doing their job reasonably well, but if they're not - well, you either tell them it's ok to not do their job or stop supporting them.

Everything you're saying should be right, absolutely. I believe that is not the reality though.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained - YouTube

If you have 6 1/2 minutes, please watch this. Its pretty light and clear and straightforward. I saw it mentioned in a reddit discussion somewhere, and it started me down a path of understanding what other voting options other countries set up to specifically avoid the fundamental flaws with our system. I used to think the exact same way as you're describing but some research was very eye opening and fundamentally changed my perspective. It may not change yours, of course, but I'd love to see your taken on it if it doesn't (sincerely, I'm not looking to argue or force anything on anyone here)

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People who thought that then voted for Trump.

Just give us the real reasons.

I was talking to a friend today at work. He is a dem through and through. He made a great point. He pointed out that Trump told us who he was. He never lied about who he was. He may lie. But he owns his character and what he does. HRC just lied about everything.

I found that interesting.

[HomerSimpson98]

Do you work in a hipster coffee shop?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The order of 3-4-5 may change but the top 5 so far are:

Economy, Countering China, Energy Independence, Healthcare & Immigration

What are yours?

In an ideal and just world with basic protections of our nation and government in place, here is my list:

1. Climate Change - I believe the science that says we are currently close to a point of no return that could dramatically impact the survival and advancement of the human race. I deeply care about 2-5 as well but this is light years ahead of them in urgency


2. Policies that would reduce the wealth gap. Returning to a time when the top tax rate is dramatically higher than it is now. The top 1% in the united states own as much as the bottom 90%. There is enough wealth in the united states for every household to have $760,000 in wealth and purchasing power. We don't need that level of socialism, but half of the US population meets a definition of "low income" as of the 2010 census, that'll probably go up in 2020. 14% live below the poverty line. The top 1% can be rich as fuck, I don't care. But we can level the curve out just a little bit. I believe the character of our society is defined based on how we treat our most vulnerable, and we fucking suck at it right now. Universal Basic Income is a part of this too.

3. Basic Human Rights/Equality - a focus on policy AND education to normalize the treatment and quality of life of LGBTQ+ folks, women, and people of color.

4. Universal Healthcare - Medicare for all, or some new national system. I don't care, get it done. The wealth gap and the fact that healthcare is so tied to employment and so stacked against the consumer in this country is just devastating, as is the fact that something like 10% of the adult population is uninsured.

5. Policies to reduce gun violence in the United States - Mass Shootings are terrible and an inconceivable problem, but things like the overall rate of suicide drop in places with a little more strict gun control. I know there's a ton more going on here and I'm not an expert on all of it, but its an extremely important problem.


6/7 were considerations to make the list for me as well: Campaign Finance Reform and Prison/Justice System reform.


In the actual world we live in, changes to protect the integrity of our elections from foreign influence, fixing our gerrymandering problem, hostile policies aimed at subverting the civil rights act and voting rights act.. maybe more urgent, idk.

[molson]

It's disappointing to me how low climate change and conservation shows up in polls I've seen of most important issues to Democrats. It's just not going to be addressed because other things will be pushed ahead of it. I can't read about politics generally for very long without getting the nagging feeling that it's all kind of pointless if we can't make significant progress on this one bigger issue.

I'd put universal healthcare at a distant #2 because I think it addresses a lot of other issues, and combined with a guaranteed minimum income (and hopefully delaying the more catastrophic effects of climate change), is the three-tiered way we can move into the decades and centuries to come in a better place than we are now.

But then it gets weird because I'm much more conservative at heart than my young, urban, professional liberal peers once we move past those 3 things. I find the other more extreme far left economic proposals pretty off-putting. I tend to lean conservative on constitutional and statutory interpretation and other legal issues. I think the government role can in society can shrink a lot - especially if we have universal healthcare and a guaranteed minimum income. I find the way that some candidates on the left choose to vilify certain concepts and people to be distasteful. And while I understand the emotional response to things like gun violence, it impacts such a relatively small portion of our society, has been on the downswing for decades, and, at least IMO, "sensible" gun control does nothing but increase gun sales.

So I'm going to disagree with anyone I vote for on lots of lots of stuff, but, with the issues that have drifted to the top for me I can't vote for any but a small number of Republicans (and those are on the state and local level for positions that really don't have an impact on those issues, and where there's no real competent competition on the left because it's a red state).

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Radii

In an ideal and just world with basic protections of our nation and government in place, here is my list:

1. Climate Change - I believe the science that says we are currently close to a point of no return that could dramatically impact the survival and advancement of the human race. I deeply care about 2-5 as well but this is light years ahead of them in urgency


2. Policies that would reduce the wealth gap. Returning to a time when the top tax rate is dramatically higher than it is now. The top 1% in the united states own as much as the bottom 90%. There is enough wealth in the united states for every household to have $760,000 in wealth and purchasing power. We don't need that level of socialism, but half of the US population meets a definition of "low income" as of the 2010 census, that'll probably go up in 2020. 14% live below the poverty line. The top 1% can be rich as fuck, I don't care. But we can level the curve out just a little bit. I believe the character of our society is defined based on how we treat our most vulnerable, and we fucking suck at it right now. Universal Basic Income is a part of this too.

3. Basic Human Rights/Equality - a focus on policy AND education to normalize the treatment and quality of life of LGBTQ+ folks, women, and people of color.

4. Universal Healthcare - Medicare for all, or some new national system. I don't care, get it done. The wealth gap and the fact that healthcare is so tied to employment and so stacked against the consumer in this country is just devastating, as is the fact that something like 10% of the adult population is uninsured.

5. Policies to reduce gun violence in the United States - Mass Shootings are terrible and an inconceivable problem, but things like the overall rate of suicide drop in places with a little more strict gun control. I know there's a ton more going on here and I'm not an expert on all of it, but its an extremely important problem.


6/7 were considerations to make the list for me as well: Campaign Finance Reform and Prison/Justice System reform.


In the actual world we live in, changes to protect the integrity of our elections from foreign influence, fixing our gerrymandering problem, hostile policies aimed at subverting the civil rights act and voting rights act.. maybe more urgent, idk.

I largely agree with the list although I somehow feel it's incredibly important to get campaign finance reform and gerrymandering further up the list because, without those, any list is rather pointless. I just don't know where it goes.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson98

Do you work in a hipster coffee shop?

Nah. Dudes is a NEA guy at the state level. Cant get much more of a democrat than that.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I was talking to a friend today at work. He is a dem through and through. He made a great point. He pointed out that Trump told us who he was. He never lied about who he was. He may lie. But he owns his character and what he does. HRC just lied about everything.

I found that interesting.

I think that's a fantastic misconception. His biggest upside is that he's gotten you to believe who he is. He is whomever he needs to be, in the group that he's with, to get what he wants. In this case, he found a vehicle and ran with it. He never takes responsibility. He is non stop defensive aggressive. He never admits any wrongdoing. He would have no problem calling a spade a club, and telling you that you were full of shit for believing it's a spade. He is, by the very definition, the emperor with no clothes. He needs people around him to tell him that he's amazing, and he needs people to help him be who he needs to become. He doesn't own his character. He tells you your character is a lie and only he knows the truth. That's a completely different animal altogether.

[molson]

What even are the specific HRC lies that made such an impression on people?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson98

Do you work in a hipster coffee shop?

This takes a lot of knowledge to get.

kudos.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by molson

What even are the specific HRC lies that made such an impression on people?

Anytime her lips moved?

[JPhillips]

Bolsinaro of Brazil is offering refuge to the Venezuelan military members that supported the coup.

All 25 of them.

Even our supported coups are cons.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I was talking to a friend today at work. He is a dem through and through. He made a great point. He pointed out that Trump told us who he was. He never lied about who he was. He may lie. But he owns his character and what he does. HRC just lied about everything.

I found that interesting.

No he didn't. Everything about him has been a lie. How he made his money, how much money he has, what his understanding of policy is, etc. The guy is a well-documented con artist who told everyone he was a self-made billionaire.

Originally Posted by tarcone

Anytime her lips moved?

You don't really have an answer it seems. Just be honest about why you support him.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I voted third party because I'm better than you.

fixed

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I think that's a fantastic misconception. His biggest upside is that he's gotten you to believe who he is. He is whomever he needs to be, in the group that he's with, to get what he wants. In this case, he found a vehicle and ran with it. He never takes responsibility. He is non stop defensive aggressive. He never admits any wrongdoing. He would have no problem calling a spade a club, and telling you that you were full of shit for believing it's a spade. He is, by the very definition, the emperor with no clothes. He needs people around him to tell him that he's amazing, and he needs people to help him be who he needs to become. He doesn't own his character. He tells you your character is a lie and only he knows the truth. That's a completely different animal altogether.

Nicely said. This actually makes more sense. Thanks.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No he didn't. Everything about him has been a lie. How he made his money, how much money he has, what his understanding of policy is, etc. The guy is a well-documented con artist who told everyone he was a self-made billionaire.



You don't really have an answer it seems. Just be honest about why you support him.

I do not support Trump. I voted Johnson.

The economy is good. There seems to be a surplus of jobs. I like that.

BUT I hate our health care system and am waiting to see if Trump can deliver anything. I am against illegal immigration. Its not racist, its illegal.

I like what Andrew Yang is selling. He looks like he has some preety good ideas.

Im tried of oir 2 party system that is broken. Shoot, the democratic party stole the nomination from Sanders because they thought HRC would win. They are trumpeting an old white guy because they want to win.
Its not about policy, its about winning.

I saw a poll where 62% of dems and 52% of repubs wants new system of government. Something has to change.

The elite are killing this country. We are the only ones that can fix it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, the deficit did go down substantially during his term. It sounds like you are conflating a year to year deficit with the overall debt. They are two different things. A lower deficit will still cause the overall debt to rise.

Fair enough lets use debt for deficit and total vs annual. Same question?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I largely agree with the list although I somehow feel it's incredibly important to get campaign finance reform and gerrymandering further up the list because, without thodr, any list is rather pointless. I just don't know where it goes.

I guess you & Radii and I have pretty different priorities. Not saying its good or bad.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As far as I can tell, its just words of support for opposition and vague threats to Maduro.

I don't want boots on the ground but would be supportive of funneling money, providing some sort of guarantees to military defectors etc. All this may be happening behind the scenes. I do think we could up the rhetoric some and continuously.

I'm fine with helping humanitarian issues. But taxpayer funding for a regime change so that Exxon gets access to more oil isn't that appealing to me.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Shoot, the democratic party stole the nomination from Sanders because they thought HRC would win.

You've been shown over and over that this isn't true and you still insist on telling this lie.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I do not support Trump. I voted Johnson.

The economy is good. There seems to be a surplus of jobs. I like that.

BUT I hate our health care system and am waiting to see if Trump can deliver anything. I am against illegal immigration. Its not racist, its illegal.

I like what Andrew Yang is selling. He looks like he has some preety good ideas.

Im tried of oir 2 party system that is broken. Shoot, the democratic party stole the nomination from Sanders because they thought HRC would win. They are trumpeting an old white guy because they want to win.
Its not about policy, its about winning.

I saw a poll where 62% of dems and 52% of repubs wants new system of government. Something has to change.

The elite are killing this country. We are the only ones that can fix it.

Party platforms are just a function of what people want. Their policies aren't set in stone. The Republican Party changed their foreign policy and economic platform overnight when Trump was elected. The Democrats changed their platform on gay marriage and other issues when their voters demanded it.

Clinton didn't steal the nomination. She ended up with considerably more votes than Sanders. Superdelegates are bullshit (and were removed) and they did favor her in ways. But she was winning that shit regardless.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess you & Radii and I have pretty different priorities. Not saying its good or bad.

I think I've moved VERY far left in the last four years, towards what I guess would be called a "democratic socialist" though I don't really know if that's the proper label for me or not. I don't care about labels, so I haven't looked to try to assign myself, I just mostly look at issues and read up enough to figure out where I land on each issue.

But yeah, at the core I think at the bare minimum we should raise taxes on the rich dramatically and increase social programs to help assist the frighteningly large number of people living in poverty or just above it. I don't mean that if you make $1 million you are taxed 90% of it. Keep your first $10 million, but once you get over that, tax 70% of it. It's what AOC proposes, but what a lot of people don't realize, it was also pretty close to the norm until Ronald Reagan, so its not like its unheard of.

Above that though, I would look closely at the model that Scandinavian countries follow with dramatically higher taxes on everyone but quality services coming out of those taxes that allow for a basic, minimum standard of living for everyone that is acceptable for a human being. I know its not perfect, but you know that I believe we are fundamentally broken as a nation, ignoring the environment, a government that is only out to protect the people in power at the expense of everyone else, actively throwing tens of millions of people's lives in the trash because we don't care.

I still want competition, ambition, capitalism. But I believe some countries have figured out how to support that without destroying the humanity of millions right in front of us, and that matters to me. I believe the people in power in the US actively fight against that because it doesn't serve their own purposes to keep them in power and generating wealth for themselves, and somehow they've convinced enough of us to blame the poor and downtrodden for their own situations that we can never build up the momentum to try to make things better in our own backyards.


I completely understand that that I am now very far left of the average democrat, much less the average american. But I think I might just be a moderate in many European countries. It's insane how oppressive and conservative even our own "left" is compared to many countries that IMO just do it better than we do.