Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CavLancer, Feb 24, 2016.
Also Congress dictates what the tax rate and spending policy will be, not the President
It's true that you strengthen whoever you feed: I usually am referring to the economy as a whole talking about deficits but there's a lower level issue of who the printed money/spending is going to. The Clinton surplus wasn't that harmful because the money was going to the middle instead of the top. The Bush deficits weren't that helpful because the money was going to the top instead of lower. Spending on wars means a mix, although much of that money is going to soldier and contractor pay, so that's good. Also to corporate profits and technology that doesn't always spill over into quality of life.
If Clinton becomes president I'm tempted by finance again.
The President has greater control over economic policy, than over local police stations, in many cases.
Chances are we'd get into another war in the Middle East, lose all progress with Iran, and completely freeze relations with Putin's Russia.
It won't be pretty foreign policy wise. Domestically more of the "don't rock the corporate boat" neoliberalism that the Democrats have embraced since the first Clinton. I.e. it won't be pretty.
We've come a ways, but we have a long way to go. Obama's saved us from the brink, but we're still stuck in the dark valley and need to climb out. If we stay here too long, our eyes will adapt to the darkness and the world of sunlight above us will forever be out of our grasp.
Clinton will only continue the corporate friendly Obama policies which are taking us down the road to plutocracy. If you believe that only the rich can save the impoverished through trickle down, then she's your woman.
First two are very likely. However, given how much Trump admires Putin (they're both aggressive and obsessed with power and national prestige at any cost), and how much Trump has been against war rhetoric about Russia, a Trump presidency would probably oversee an age of increased Russian expansionism. Putin would know his buddy Trump wouldn't stop him, and would probably try something involving Belarus or, once Nazarbayev dies, northern Kazakhstan.
But yes, a Trump presidency would seriously harm ties with Mexico immediately. Then, once his war(s) in the Middle East got going, relations with a lot of other countries would sour.
EDIT: Oops, this is the Clinton thread, not the Trump one
I mean, Clinton supports the Iranian Nuclear Deal so I fail to see how any progress would be lost. Secondly, Sanders wont even get elected President, something like 60% of Americans have negative connotations around the word socialist/socialism; that does not make for a good general election narrative. Also as much as I respect, and like Sanders as a Senator I think his campaign has done an awful job at clamping down on the extremely sexist elements within his support base. Also let's not forget his whole "yes I will raise taxes". The last candidate who openly advocated for taxes was Dukakis in 1988 and I think we all know how that ended up.
TLDR: I like Sanders but he isn't realistic, or electable.
nothing short of either a nuclear holocaust or a relatively competent presidency
The "insuring 16 million Americans who were uninsured" number is also misleading. Obamacare lowered the qualifications for Medicaid, allowing millions of people to get it who could not do so before. It's pretty easy to get "millions of uninsured people insured" if you simply force the taxpayers to provide it for them. Increasing welfare is no great trick, presidents have been doing that for decades.
Implying that plutocracy isn't in force already
Yup. I'm pretty sure I mentioned in the other thread that Trump's foreign policy wouldn't actually be all that bad. No messy interventions and an embrace of multilateral efforts with our "enemies."
She supports the Iran deal because Obama does and she's just pandering to his coalition. She's derided Sanders before for even mentioning the possibility that maybe it's ok to talk to our "enemies" unconditionally. She'd rather push Iran to the brink of another revolution before beating them over the head at the negotiating table.
Her foreign policy is disastrous. Like Cuba, we need to engage "rouge" states, and bring them into the world fold, not ostracize them as "threats."
Two things. You say that like that isn't the same for the word "Clinton." There's a lot of independent and conservative voters out there who are Bernie > Trump and Trump > Clinton. Her name is tarnished, damaged goods. As you can see in the Democratic race socialism is becoming more popular than Clinton!
Secondly, things change. This can apply to the tarnished Clinton name as well, but voters are showing (especially independents) that they very much favor Sanders despite his super-scary socialism. In all matchups versus Trump/republicans, Clinton tends to lose while Bernie comes out extremely strong.
I could also go on and on about how coalitions have changed, and Bernie is building his coalition around the forgotten (such as impoverished whites who feel left out of the corporatism of the Democratic party and its focus on identity politics, rather than poverty). To them, socialism isn't what's been screwing them over for the past couple decades.
This came from the same source that claimed "Obama boys" back in 2008. Not only was it racist (lets call all the supporters of the first black president "boys," that'll go over well), but in itself came from a sexist campaign. Lets not forget that women who don't support Clinton have a special place in hell, and that women who don't support Clinton are just "chasing after boys."
I see on one hand more of Clinton's dirty politics (Obama is a secret Muslim, Obama supporters are sexist, Bernie supporters are sexist) and on the other hand an official campaign shaming women into voting with sexism.
Her campaign is disgraceful.
Unlike what the corporate media peddles out, polls show that Americans by and far don't mind tax raises, especially on the rich. Voters aren't stupid, like Clinton and the MSM want them to be. They understand that when Bernie clarifies that he's raising taxes by 500 dollars to save 5000, that they actually save money.
I hate going negative, which this entire post feels like. It's against the Sander's style of campaign and parallels Clinton dirty politics. But goddamn, over the course of the campaign Clinton has shown herself to be the unelectable and unrealistic nominee. Not only does she poll like crap against Republicans, but she has a massive hate following amongst conservatives, independents, and now democrats too! She loves to relish in the idea that she's the butt of Republican attacks and hatred, but how the hell is she going to get elected running on only the votes of a small number of Democrats who still like her?
This isn't even mentioning her poor ability to take criticism and the massive amount of baggage she carries into the election.
Bernie has shown to be far more adept at crossing party lines and building a new coalition. A Clinton nomination will mean a Trump presidency.
Aye, this is true. But we aren't completely there yet. The American people still have enough of a voice to say enough is enough and turn the country back. If we were a full plutocracy, nothing short of revolution would be able to change it.
A Bernie win is a sign there is still a chance.
First point: The democratic Primary electorate is a vastly different beast than the general election electorate. It does not surprise me at all that democrats are more favorable towards socialism than general election, independent voters.
Secondly, looking at polling almost a year out is so useless it is not even worth bringing up. The reason for Sanders' lead is because Republicans have been spending the entire primary election, up until a few days ago at best, attacking Hillary Clinton. Honestly, probably to reinforce Sanders' message. They have hardly even touched Bernie Sanders at this point, if he is the nominee that will change.
I expect that the murder of foreigners with flying robots will continue. So there's that.
Considering the fact that moderate Democrats have supported around 50 authoritarian regimes since WWII - Not to mention authorizing bombings, being complicit in genocides, etc. - I wouldn't say they're particularly desirable
Well that's America in general, most regular citizens are fine with that too.
I agree that he has miles to go before catching up to W.
True*. The Truman doctrine called for the U.S. to resist Communist aggression everywhere it appeared. This often meant propping up right wing dictatorships. As one U.S. official commented, "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
Q: how many authoritarian regimes since the Evil Empire fell?
* This list seems to use a spectacularly broad definition of "support," more than once including dictators who we overthrew.
And for some reason omits Israel, which systematically deprives its Muslim citizens of their civil rights.
What's this whole emails ordeal? Why are people talking about it? Why is it relevant?
(Yes I'm still out of the loop, sorry for knowing so little)
Title: What to expect from a Hillary Presidency?
A Republican House and Senate and more idiotic Presidential nominees.
You can say that paying soldiers is one of the least efficient ways of getting Keynesian spending to happen - yes, it's going to reasonably low-paid people, which means they're more likely to spend than save, but in economic terms they're being paid to do nothing. Likewise, £10,000 spent on a missile has the same Keynesian effect as spending that money on factory machinery, but the missile stops having an economic effect once it's purchased. That's not the case if you spend that money on a bridge, or on paying the wages of a teacher. That said, military spending is also one of the most politically palatable ways of doing it, especially if you're a small-government Republican.
Highly efficient to pay soldiers to maximize employment and move inventory, but highly inefficient for maximizing growth rates and creating inventory.
Better for growth rates than nothing, though.
Separate names with a comma.