Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[QuickBH]

Tell me something I don't know. The whole Republican Party's purpose in life seems to be making the wealthy even richer, even at the cost of everyone else, making it more difficult everyone else to fight the big corporations when the latter wrongs the former, and making life in general more difficult for anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. If the whole party goes defunct, I won't shed a tear! They are a joke!

I can say the same about the democratic party, just want to make restraints on small business owners so the wealthy can benefit from limited competition.

I hope the two party system burns, I much prefer the Republican party in concept, but they do the same in practice so they both might as well be the Democratic party.

 

[toshimelonhead]

I'm not going to debate policy with you here; I agree with quite a bit of the above.

However, at this point, I believe that Bernie's chances at a nomination are decreasing by the passing minute because he has really failed to bring attention to his other policies (Like I said above, 70-80 percent of his talking points at last debate were pointed at Wall St.)

I like to things of things from a strategic viewpoint, and at this point it's politically unfeasible for Bernie to win the election. Say what you will about his policies and the faults of Hillary's, but considering Bernie's lack of support among Black and older voters, and the fact that more than half of Americans would not vote for a socialist makes Hillary the more electable candidate for the Dems

I don't know if it's unfeasible as much as Bernie doesn't seem to know what he's talking about when dealing with the banks (see his latest interview with the Daily News Editorial Board when he struggled to explain how he would break up the banks.) There is actually a fairly simple manner to do so: every big investment bank when speaking with clients or recruiting graduates talks about their "Chinese wall" and how this protects employees from using insider information to make unfair deals. If employees at investment banks can't even talk with each other, why do they need to be in the same bank to begin with? That is where I would split them. The problem I have with Bernie is that I agree with most of his talking points, and I would vote for him if he became the nominee. I just don't see him as more qualified than Hillary given her experience as First Lady and Secretary of State.

Hillary's positions are nuanced and do not work well in 30-second soundbytes or 140 characters. That hurts her in a primary, but helps her in the general where debates matter and substance matters. I look forward to see her debate with Bernie in New York: it's put up or shut up time for him.

 

[Bughouse]

In case you haven't seen this yet:

Reasons I cannot support Bernie for President (though would obviously still vote for him over Cruz or Trump), in Bernie's own bluster, I mean words

 

[Chou Toshio]

In case you haven't seen this yet:

Reasons I cannot support Bernie for President (though would obviously still vote for him over Cruz or Trump), in Bernie's own bluster, I mean words

I read a third of the way through, and I could not go on. Genuinely made me think.

I get the point Bughouse is making-- I personally agree with the vast majority of positions Bernie holds and see real merit to the proposals he's put forth. That said, reading that interview was pretty depressing. Whether it's discussing the effects of "corporate America's" business practices on the US economy, or taking the legal and logistical steps needed to re-structure large corporations (financial institutions), or the affects (political and economic) of stances on international trade policy, or the problems with the financial crisis and what fraudulent practices are in place...

I actually think that I could have given a more educated argument than Bernie did on several counts in that interview; and that is not a good sign (because I would be totally bull-shitten' it).

To me it would be one thing if this was a rally or youtube video where the answers have to be simplified for the average viewer to understand, and there is a need to avoid the intricacies of economics and economic policy theory (not to political theory), but this was an in-depth interview from an intelligent interviewer with good questions; the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how one's opinions have been informed by a keen understanding of the forces, results, and intricacies around these complex issues. Obviously, Bernie didn't deliver here, and you can't exactly make excuses for a lack of understanding of economics when your entire message is an economic one.

It's fine to believe that social programs or policy-built markets can out-perform free markets (this is basically cold, hard, fact when it comes to health care). It is fine to believe that trade agreements and degrees of trade barriers that protect workers delivers a greater value to a country than unregulated trade. It is fine to believe that the unregulated practices of the financial sector tanked the economy and delivered an unacceptable degree of damage to society; that it is better for all of us if crooks are punished, too-big-to-fail corporations are broken up, and industries are regulated.

All of those things, I would argue for and say are true, based on my limited understanding of market forces, macro economics, and the general state of the economy. You've got to know the forces that lead public health care in other countries to outperforming the US's system, to know that we make a trade-off when we inhibit any type of trade barrier that hurts consumers even as it helps workers

BUT when you are running for the president for the United States on a campaign to address these questions, you cannot ignore the studies of economics, you cannot be without arguments based on logic, data, economic and political theory that give proper support for your positions and demonstrate a keen depth regarding the issues.

 

[vonFiedler]

Yeah better vote for people with a vested interest in not doing all those things than someone who is going to need a cabinet

 

[macle]

except if you are a republican and talking about climate change that you are allowed to ignore studies??????/

 

[Chou Toshio]

I'm just stating that I get Bughouse's point, and I was a bit disappointed reading the interview. That doesn't mean I'm changing my positions or my vote for Bern.

And it's absolutely true that the Republicans' lack of understanding or recognition for anything factual is even more ridiculous.

I think you could say though that Hillary would be sharper, and probably have demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of how economics works.

 

[vonFiedler]

I think you could say though that Hillary would be sharper, and probably have demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of how economics works.

A housecat might be better at hunting mice than Bernie is with economics, but if my goal is to run a mice farm, I'm not going to vote for it. (I suppose the current Republican candidates in this analogy are exterminators)

 

[Chou Toshio]

A housecat might be better at hunting mice than Bernie is with economics, but if my goal is to run a mice farm, I'm not going to vote for it. (I suppose the current Republican candidates in this analogy are exterminators)

Gonna have to point out that your analogy is terrible in regards to the economy. Bernie is a democratic socialist; he believes in social programs, some public industries, and thorough regulation-- but acknowledges the need for a market and market forces to build a healthy economy.

In your analogy about mice farming, cats and exterminators are forces that completely work against the objective of farming, while Sanders is a farmer, but that's not the actual dynamics of the issue.

All of the candidates believe that we need market forces and a market to grow a healthy economy; all are in favor of letting that market work.

The only difference are the varying degrees to which they believe in intervention. Intervention comes at the cost of growth but enables some social goods and wealth redistribution that may bring a higher value than the sacrificed growth. Bernie is just willing to sacrifice the most growth for social goods, but that doesn't change that he and all the other are pro-market, pro-growth.

Using your mouse farming analogy, it would be more like this:

Bernie: believes in regulations (domestic and foreign policy) to promote the ability of individual mouse farmers to stay independent and work, grow, and go to market. You've got comparatively smaller economy, but you may create the highest standards of living and the greatest social good (with the right mix of market and regulation). Too much regulation, and you do risk impoverishing everyone by not having enough productivity to support the standard of living you've created with social programs, but with Bernie's vision this is highly unlikely. You also lose a degree of innovation and development of mouse farming technology.

Hillary: would be willing to let investment banks buy and consolidate mouse farms or let big mouse enforce a nursery system that puts individual farmers at a disadvantage, but she would support regulation to protect the voice of those farmers and prevent fraud. You've got the richest economic model here (highest possible GDP), probably overall decent living standards, with a bigger wealth gap, and a greater risk of financial crisis. The highest degree of innovation and development of technology, which creates even more wealth.

Ted Cruz: Fuck the regulation-- we see a massive boom and bust economy with big mouse, speculators, mouse crime syndicates, etc. have their way, and own all the policy makers who might as well be lobbyists for the industry. Players in the market are too busy swindling each other and the common man to direct any productivity towards creating real economic value. All the greatest innovations are in how to cook the books. Greatest risk of financial crisis.

Trump: Similar to above, but he does build a giant wall (which may or may not sink the farmers) that prevents Chinese mice from entering the market and stops some Mexicans from farming. Likewise, similar to Ted, but with some protections for farmers against foreign competition. However, you might piss off the Chinese so much that they won't bail you out when your bubble bursts.

 

[vonFiedler]

You missed the analogy entirely, which wasn't about the economy at all.

I have no doubt at all that Hillary is going to be better at working within the system to accomplish her goals, which will ultimately consolidate more power toward the friends, lobbies, and business invested in her.

So again, why would I vote for someone who is good at doing what I don't want just because they are good at it? (unless their general election opponent is a potential authoritarian)

 

[tehy]

vonfiedler was calling hillary the housecat. and saying that while a housecat may have more of the talent necessary for mice farming, they are also motivated to eat the mice so it's not going to work out

edit: also the chinese have their own bubbles waiting to burst i heard.

 

[Chou Toshio]

You missed the analogy entirely, which wasn't about the economy at all.

I have no doubt at all that Hillary is going to be better at working within the system to accomplish her goals, which will ultimately consolidate more power toward the friends, lobbies, and business invested in her.

So again, why would I vote for someone who is good at doing what I don't want just because they are good at it? (unless their general election opponent is a potential authoritarian)

I was talking entirely about economic policy, and how good the candidates are at explaining how the economy works and the impact of policies. So, when you said Hillary is a cat (and good at hunting mice) I assumed you were still talking about the economy since that was the context of the conversation.

There is no way I could "get" you without you actually taking the effort to explain you're talking about an entirely different context.

 

[tehy]

I was talking entirely about economic policy, and how good the candidates are at explaining how the economy works and the impact of policies. So, when you said Hillary is a cat (and good at hunting mice) I assumed you were still talking about the economy since that was the context of the conversation.

There is no way I could "get" you without you actually taking the effort to explain you're talking about an entirely different context.

No, I will explain the way to get it

Edit: OK you got that part but didn't get the more obvious part. My bad fam. But I thought it to be clear tbh.

 

[UncleSam]

In case you haven't seen this yet:

Reasons I cannot support Bernie for President (though would obviously still vote for him over Cruz or Trump), in Bernie's own bluster, I mean words

Read through the interview and I mean...how is it not completely obvious to everyone that this is a ridiculous hack job? What in particular seemed like bluster? Him saying 'I don't know' to a question which he couldn't possibly know the answer to without knowing classified information (i.e. whether Obama's/the CIA's policy on drone strikes so far has been "right")? Him not knowing the text and precise legal statute which allows the government to prosecute fraud on Wall Street? Him not knowing where Ruth Bader Ginsberg went to high school? Him saying he doesn't think that manufacturers of legal firearms should be sued when their weapons are used in an illegal manner (while also mentioning he wants assault weapons banned), and them running with the narrative of 'Bernie Sanders disagrees with Sandy Hook victims' families'???

Like jesus christ anyone who thinks this interview reflects poorly on Bernie is having the wool pulled over their eyes. The Daily News is an extension of the Clinton propaganda machine and it only takes a read-over to figure out that practically every question in this interview was either unanswerable, purposefully confusing, factually inaccurate, or ridiculously leading so as to 'trap' him into saying something which they can run a negative headline about. The fact that it's framed as a cordial, 'issues' interview is just window dressing.

 

[Shrug]

Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?

That's not "unanswerable", "purposefully confusing", "factually inaccurate" or "misleading". That question is essentially: you have a stated goal. can you and how will you attain it? If you ask Ted Cruz about his flat tax, which is a blisteringly stupid idea, he will be able to outline it for you - or refer you to his website. The fact that breaking up the banks seems to be a good idea changes nothing if Bernie has no way to do it. It's pretty cringe when he goes back to the same stump points ("a stronger national economy") when asked even basic policy specifics.

 

[UncleSam]

That's not "unanswerable", "purposefully confusing", "factually inaccurate" or "misleading". That question is essentially: you have a stated goal. can you and how will you attain it? If you ask Ted Cruz about his flat tax, which is a blisteringly stupid idea, he will be able to outline it for you - or refer you to his website. The fact that breaking up the banks seems to be a good idea changes nothing if Bernie has no way to do it. It's pretty cringe when he goes back to the same stump points ("a stronger national economy") when asked even basic policy specifics.

He answered this question so I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

Ok, so they asked a legitimate question to which he had a legitimate answer (i.e. use the powers vested in the government/administration through the Dodd-Frank act), the Daily News then followed up with some nonsense about the Federal Reserve (which they kept coming back to) when Bernie never mentioned it, which was purposefully confusing while sounding 'related' to the uninformed observer. Bernie responded that the administration has that power but he isn't sure if the federal reserve does, which sounded like a 'confused' answer but in reality is quite precise and demonstrates a far greater knowledge of such a specific mechanism that I guarantee you no other candidate (including and especially Hillary Clinton) has the slightest clue about. So Bernie was somewhat confused by a confusing non-sequitur. Ok?

My point is that the only answers which seem like 'bluster', as Bughouse put it, were to questions of one of the four types I mentioned. Of which there were many.

 

[UncleSam]

Oh and in case anyone actually didn't already figure this out the New York Daily News is owned by Mortimer Zuckerman, who is a Clinton donor to the tune of 50,000 - 100,000 dollars.

Surprise!

 

[Bughouse]

I think it's a pretty big fucking deal if you want to imprison people for not being a part of the "moral economy" without actually being able to say what law they broke. Or to say "I'm going to break up the banks" without saying how the hell he has the authority to do so. The president is not a dictator.

 

[veiva]

1) I think it's a pretty big fucking deal if you want to imprison people for not being a part of the "moral economy" without actually being able to say what law they broke. 2) Or to say "I'm going to break up the banks" without saying how the hell he has the authority to do so. 3) The president is not a dictator.

FDR was able to "bust trusts" by utilizing existing legislation, guiding new legislation to increase the regularity abilities of the executive branch, and fully utilize the powers provided to the attorney general. Ideally, Sanders would do the same, as he has claimed.

1) I'm not all-knowing, much like Sanders, and even worse I'm much less learned on the nuances of existing legislation at the end of the day, so it's rather hard to for me to know exactly if laws were broken by financial institutions, and which laws those may be, but asking "What laws were broken?" or similar serves a different purpose than you, or others, may intend.

The initiators of any proceeding have the ability to follow through or not, generally. An executive office has the ability to prioritize cases, among other things. They can choose to act, or choose not to. The Bush Administration was most definitely guilty of war crimes, but Obama did not initiate an investigation because of the potential precedent (and perhaps other reasons). As a result, there was no investigation done and no one was prosecuted.

Do you feel "What laws were broken?" is a worthwhile question in that example? Guantanamo Bay, as an institution, is a grey area of the law (United States and international) at best, but should definitely not exist, and there is a barrier that tends to prevent concise understanding of what went on, which allows the question--"What laws were broken?"--to serve a different purpose: a rhetorical tool that passively condones the existing processes (torture, indeterminate imprisonment, etc) while eliminating or hindering discussion on how to prevent said processes.

I feel the financial sector is treated much the same. And the question--"What laws were broken?"--serves an identical purpose.

2) And legislation can be enacted to provide the executive the powers to regulate harmful activities that aren't illegal at the moment. That's typically how it goes. For example, railroads and businesses may have not broken any laws, or may have been able to follow the letter of the law but violate the intent, with the practice of rebates. I'm not a lawyer, and especially not a lawyer skilled in 19th century commerce, but until the Elkins Act, it was apparently legal by some means, although definitely antagonistic and destructive. So the Elkins Act was passed and now the executive branch could work towards eliminating the practice. FDR didn't have the authority, and then he did, and then used the authority to move towards his goals.

3) Indeed:

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

In honesty, your concerns are flimsy at best and seem derived from a single interview.

 

[Killah]

Clinton campaign using noise machines, has Panama Papers connections, insults BLM, doubles down on Superpredators, lies about oil and gas donations (m-muh technicalities), insults millennials, calls the Sanders campaign liars, and complains that the Sanders campaign is being overly negative while connecting him to Sandy Hook of all things, all in one week: meh


Sanders flops in one interview: FRONT PAGE OF CNN, LOOK AT THIS OLD GUY FLOUNDER WHAT A CLOWN


I cannot imagine why, in a generation as well connected and potentially well informed as anyone under thirty, anyone would vote for her for any reason other than letting the wrong lizard person win.

 

[Celestavian]

CNN in particular is owned by Time Warner, which has donated $600,000 to Hillary's campaign's over her lifetime, so the idea of a holding of Time Warner being allowed to criticize Clinton doesn't seem likely. Making mountains of Clinton's rival's molehills seem like a much more likely course of action for something like CNN. Media biases in general are what's keeping Hillary's image way cleaner than it should be, as well as feminists pushing for her regardless of how terrible she is. It's to the point, both in the US and abroad, where I wouldn't really call people who read the mainstream news "well informed" but rather "well misled".

 

[tehy]

as I recall many of the top networks are very large clinton donors. seriously, i'm not sure why it is legal for a media company to make campaign donations - it's a conflict of interest at the highest level

 

[Porpoise]

as well as feminists pushing for her regardless of how terrible she is.

This isn't true? Third wave feminists, for the most part, strongly dislike Hillary strongly support Bernie for the most part. At least, this is how it is from what I've seen.

 

[Killah]

It's to the point, both in the US and abroad, where I wouldn't really call people who read the mainstream news "well informed" but rather "well misled".

If this was directed at my comment, I meant to emphasize the "potentially" of "potentially well informed." Mainstream media is dominatingly pro-Hillary, but anyone who uses other sources can quickly get overwhelmed by how much shit she does that does not get reported on your CNN or even Fox News.

"Remember kids, do your own research!" -Hillary 2016, probably. I wonder if HRC is the only modern candidate who people are exceedingly less likely to vote for the more they know about her.

 

[Bughouse]

lol k veiva

Use FDR as an example when pretty much every historian ever agrees what he did, while maybe (debatably) for the best, was an abuse of executive authority. He literally had to stack the court to get his way.

Secondly, no. You can't just pass laws and retroactively convict people of crimes. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution: "No Bill of Attainder of ex post facto Law shall be passed." If Bernie can't point to a single law when it's a bread and butter issue for him, it's because IT DOESN'T EXIST. Also you are entirely missing the point. The institutions did at least in some cases break the rules. Institutions WERE to some degree punished. Bernie wants to go after the executives aka the employees. Biiiiiiiig difference there.

Still, yes, of course you're right that Bernie Sanders would have the authority to break up the banks.... if he had the piece of cake political situation FDR did. ie only with a Democratic (and might I add very, very progressive - no swing district democrats) House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate... to pass all the new laws (ie a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall) necessary. If you know the first thing about congressional district apportionment, you know the first part for sure is not happening, and even if it somehow did, the reaction against Bernie in the 2018 midterms would make 2010 look like a walk in the park for the Democrats. The second part in the Senate is also not happening either in any case.

So I was talking about the actual current political reality. And the fact remains that if he tries to use an obscure section of Dodd-Frank to break up the banks as he implied, it would be stayed by federal judges, appealed up, and then he would lose badly at the Supreme Court after maybe a year or two of looking pathetic to the American public for not taking the hint. That piece of the statute he pointed to is widely seen as unconstitutional, including, most likely, by at least 6 members of the court, if not all 8. Trust busting is one thing, going after an industry that has never been ruled to be a monopoly (indeed, it's plainly not one) is another thing entirely.