2016 Election Thread

[Craig Arko]

 

And doing what with it? Who's responsible for it being in the state it is today, the politicians? 

 

"Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone". - Pope Benedict 

 

I don't see that as a pervasive attitude in America and it's not entirely the fault of the politicians. 

No, the U.S. is a lot more like this in attitude.

 

http://espn.go.com/dickvitale/vcolumn041108-Sprewell.html

 

[DaveW]

Trump telling Bernie to run independent is absolutely hilarious.

[Squirrel]

 

Trump telling Bernie to run independent is absolutely hilarious.

I think Bernie will, though, which wouldn't be so hilarious.

[Craig Arko]

Twins option Sanders to Rochester, recall Clinton.

 

Trump tendered outright release.

[DaveW]

 

I think Bernie will, though, which wouldn't be so hilarious.

Nah, the odds really are minuscule.

For one, Sanders really has nothing to gain by doing it, he wouldn't win and wouldn't come close.

 

More importantly:

You need an absolute minimum spend of 1-2 billion  to fund a presidential campaign. Sanders certainly doesn't have that money in the bank, and it takes a lot of $27 donations from his supporters to get up to 2 billion.

Most importantly: I believe it's already too late to get Bernie on the ballot as an independent in a significant amount of states anyways.

[formerly33]

If Sanders runs independently, we're presented with the problem of him getting a fair amount of what could potentially be votes for Hillary. Would it be enough for Trump to win the nomination? I don't know, but I do know enough conservative republicans who would vote for Sanders over Hillary because she is supposedly an incompetent criminal ... and then there are those who are still going to vote for Trump because they'll go to any means to try to prevent a Dem from holding presidential office.

 

And that goes to show what morons some people can be. They don't care who the POTUS is or what they stand for. All they care about is the party the candidate has aligned themselves with, regardless of the fact that it was done out of purely bureaucratic motives (at least in the case of Trump and Sanders).

 

Sanders running independently would help no one and could only hurt Hillary and consequently the country. Sanders is intelligent, and he can see that. Anyone who possesses the power to aid Trump's campaign so significantly and does so willingly is the criminal, not Hillary Clinton.

[PseudoSABR]

I think Sanders wants a substantial role in defining the party platform.  If Sanders keeps a float until the convention it will be much more difficult to disavow his socialistic ideals.  I think the Democrats have to bring him into the process somehow and it will be interesting to see what that looks like. As impossible as it seems now, I can see him being on the ticket (for perhaps one term?), which might be a pretty mobilizing force.

 

In any case, I hope Clinton doesn't get too clever and pick a VP who tracks to the right of her.   I worry she'll go bland and safe.   I don't know a lot about Sherrod Brown, but I've heard his name floated, and perhaps he could appease the progressive wing of the party.  But some one like Tim Kaine? Bleh. 

[Craig Arko]

It's really too bad Harold Stassen is gone. This just might have been his year.

[Squirrel]

 

I think Sanders wants a substantial role in defining the party platform.  If Sanders keeps a float until the convention it will be much more difficult to disavow his socialistic ideals.  I think the Democrats have to bring him into the process somehow and it will be interesting to see what that looks like. As impossible as it seems now, I can see him being on the ticket (for perhaps one term?), which might be a pretty mobilizing force.

 

In any case, I hope Clinton doesn't get too clever and pick a VP who tracks to the right of her.   I worry she'll go bland and safe.   I don't know a lot about Sherrod Brown, but I've heard his name floated, and perhaps he could appease the progressive wing of the party.  But some one like Tim Kaine? Bleh. 

I've heard Castro from TX is a possibility? (Which Castro, I'm not sure ... aren't there brothers ... maybe the one in Congress?) I've also heard the possibility of Bernie as VP, which I wouldn't mind, but I'd really hate to lose his voice in the Senate, but at least VT isn't likely to appoint/elect someone who is a complete opposite. And wasn't there someone from Florida ... ? But yeah ... I'd be REALLY disappointed with someone like Sherrod Brown. Yuck.

 

As I've said many times I don't have a problem with the issues he raises, as I don't think most Democrats do; and I think he should have input into the platform, now that he's a registered Democart ( ). But I do think some of his solutions would be met with a worse backlash in Congress. But that's my opinion and we've been down that road before. While I'm tired of compromising too far to the right, I also don't think that standing in an unyielding position too far to the left does much good, either.

[PseudoSABR]

Five-thirty eight had a pretty even-handed discussion on whether Bernie is hurting Clinton's chances.

[Bark's Lounge]

I don't read the political thread too much, probably for my sanity and I am not schooled on the subject. From my perspective, a new shift in leftist politics and new ideas began in 2000 with Nader's run for president. Some might blame him for Gore's failed presidency candidacy, I really don't care or have a comment on that.

 

The wave for new ideas was destroyed by 9/11, and an era of fear encompassed this country. It is obvious that it hampers us to this day.

 

But, those ideas are coming back, the sense of wanting the government to be run justly and morally. I really don't believe Sanders will run as a 3rd party candidate, but I feel like he wants his idealism, which a lot of us share to start having an impact on the political landscape. It is very important, to me and a lot of other citizens.

 

I hope he keeps up the fight and gets what he wants out of this.

 

Trump is ****, we all know that. He is gross.

 

Hillary is gross too, but to a lesser extent, but she is gross nonetheless. My preference would be to have a woman be president, but not her.

 

The landscape of politics needs to change big time, it needs to become secular again, socially liberal by the farthest reach and big business needs to wrangled and put back into it's pen... never to escape again.

 

I really don't want to vote this year, I am sick of voting out of fear, but I will vote for her if she accepts some of Sander's ideas and pimps them out.

 

The whole Sanders phenomena is not a new thing... it is an extension of Nader, which was suppressed by the whole terrorism/fear era of the last 15 years. Like anything, time dissapates the ideas and feelings of of fear. I feel confident the quest for just concepts will continue, but if this voice of the people is not answered to, we will be in for some very rough times in the near future.

[Squirrel]

 

I don't read the political thread too much, probably for my sanity and I am not schooled on the subject. From my perspective, a new shift in leftist politics and new ideas began in 2000 with Nader's run for president. Some might blame him for Gore's failed presidency candidacy, I really don't care or have a comment on that.

 

The wave for new ideas was destroyed by 9/11, and an era of fear encompassed this country. It is obvious that it hampers us to this day.

 

But, those ideas are coming back, the sense of wanting the government to be run justly and morally. I really don't believe Sanders will run as a 3rd party candidate, but I feel like he wants his idealism, which a lot of us share to start having an impact on the political landscape. It is very important, to me and a lot of other citizens.

 

I hope he keeps up the fight and gets what he wants out of this.

 

Trump is ****, we all know that. He is gross.

 

Hillary is gross too, but to a lesser extent, but she is gross nonetheless. My preference would be to have a woman be president, but not her.

 

The landscape of politics needs to change big time, it needs to become secular again, socially liberal by the farthest reach and big business needs to wrangled and put back into it's pen... never to escape again.

 

I really don't want to vote this year, I am sick of voting out of fear, but I will vote for her if she accepts some of Sander's ideas and pimps them out.

 

The whole Sanders phenomena is not a new thing... it is an extension of Nader, which was suppressed by the whole terrorism/fear era of the last 15 years. Like anything, time dissapates the ideas and feelings of of fear. I feel confident the quest for just concepts will continue, but if this voice of the people is not answered to, we will be in for some very rough times in the near future.

I think comparing Sanders to Nader is gross. I think comparing today's movement to anything Nader stood for is gross. Nader is nothing but an egotistical SOB. He cares of nothing and no one but himself. I have a heap more respect for Sanders. That said, Sanders probably would have been better off running as a 3rd party candidate all along. He only joined the Democratic Party to have a larger stage from which to push his agenda. I don't think he really cared or not if he won the nomination, it's pretty clear that wasn't really his goal. 

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I think comparing Sanders to Nader is gross. I think comparing today's movement to anything Nader stood for is gross. Nader is nothing but an egotistical SOB. He cares of nothing and no one but himself. I have a heap more respect for Sanders. That said, Sanders probably would have been better off running as a 3rd party candidate all along. He only joined the Democratic Party to have a larger stage from which to push his agenda. I don't think he really cared or not if he won the nomination, it's pretty clear that wasn't really his goal. 

Nader and Sanders might have a different ideology, but I think they both stand for the same disgust that stands against the"Main" political parties, especially for the leftists. It's okay that you don't like Nader, but your sentences seem to vilify him like he is some sort of evil creation. I will certainly say he is a lot better than the presidents that have represented us in the last 35 years. I'll be lenient on BO, but my quality of life has depreciated on his watch and substantially at that and I could not afford to lose that ground. It is mainly because of the ACA. Me and my wife have suffered greatly because of that. The deductibles and other modifications to our health care have made our quality of life very sad. I don't blame Obama fully, but the medical industry, the insurance industries have made our lives very sad.

 

You spend 1 day in hospital and your are out $2,500 dollars... and that's my cost. A cost, we cannot afford, and my wife who has nefarious health problems she needs to look after very close has done nothing because I had a health scare back in the fall and we cannot afford it. That is wrong.

 

Hey, we did everything right as we were told 20 years ago, my wife went to university, received her degree and went on for more. I went to trade school and it has not worked out.

 

I really don't think Nader was that gross. I like Sanders, he would be my go to candidate, but I am not sure what either of those candidates could have accomplished.No candidate will accomplish anything until the system changes.

 

If Elizabeth Warren were running for president, I'd be the first in line. I dislike Hillary and I hate Trump.

[Craig Arko]

Most of you have probably seen this going around, but what the heck.

 

https://youtu.be/jkJR2LEihQY

[formerly33]

 

Most of you have probably seen this going around, but what the heck.

https://youtu.be/jkJR2LEihQY

Second appearance in this thread alone.

[Craig Arko]

 

Second appearance in this thread alone.

That's what I get for missing staff meetings.

[TheLeviathan]

For the record, I don't think one need be a hardcore leftist to oppose some of the things going in our system that need fixing.  Those issues are of a bipartisan creation.

 

The real issue is the proposed solutions are always so terrible.  You can like the theme Bernie is preaching, but in practice most of his ideas are just flat terrible and unworkable.  What we have divorced from political analysis altogether is practical, selfless political conduct.  Sanders is right about getting money out of politics, but that's just the start.  Then we need people that will do more than pass something that sounds good and lets them keep their seat -we need to start crafting and passing good policies themselves and let the results do the talking.  Instead we get "free college!" and "build a wall!" and other such nonsense.  And believe me, if you believe either of those things you are just as gullible and as much a part of the problem as the other side.

 

I'd like to start a new divided powers idea - liberals get to decide what needs fixing and then we drag their butts as far from the meeting to solve it as humanly possible.  Then we get some libertarians/fiscal conservatives and force them to solve those problems as well as they can.  Social conservatives can pass all the legislation and changes they want at their local church but they're barred from the process.

[Mike Sixel]

Much of Europe has free college. Why can't that happen here? I'm not arguing it should, I'm asking why that's like "build a wall"....when much of an entire continent either has it, or is moving that way.

[PseudoSABR]

Bernie might not be the guy to accomplish it, his policies don't show the nuance of addressing the complexity and scope of many of the problems -- that said, the policy goals themselves aren't simply unworkable.  Whether it's universal health care, tuition-free education (as opposed to college for everyone), breaking up the banks, etc. are obtainable.   The issue isn't so much that we can't do such things, it's a debate about which path we take to get there, and whether we have the political will to accomplish what works against entrenched and powerful private interest.   

 

For my part, the difficult barrier to overcome is not necessarily the mechanism to accomplish any one of these policies, but rather the substainable political will to follow those policies through wihtout letting them get muddied up like the Great Society and the ACA did.   Bernie is selling a target, not a path; for him, the point of elections is to set goals, not settle the nuance of policy. 

 

I think we need an election mandate in support of these kind of policy goals in order to start the engine of generating good practical ideas.  I'd prefer trial and error, especially at the state level to test out a variety of schemes, rather than debate on the speculative merits of a given plan (where ideology so often will the line of division).   

 

I really don't see what Bernie is proposing as all that radical, impossible or generally terrible in terms of societal goals.  In fact, I jive with them.  And I'd love to debate the policy in terms of effectiveness, rather than in terms of whether or not to do it...   

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

Trial and error doesn't work. MN raised taxes and spends on education the economy is great and they worker supply is amazing. What do GOP governors do? Cut taxes, subsidize big companies, and cut education, and their economies don't do as well.....but they keep doing it.

 

It might, frankly, be an experiment that needs a new model to work....

 

edit: yes, that's possibly over simplified.....it's an example, not a treatise with years of research behind it. But, it is hard to argue that experimentation works, given the way the states run.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Bernie might not be the guy to acco..............

 

I really don't see what Bernie is proposing as all that radical, impossible or generally terrible in terms of societal goals.  In fact, I jive with them.  And I'd love to debate the policy in terms of effectiveness, rather than in terms of whether or not to do it...   

 

I agree that Bernie Sanders is not going to lead us to the promised land. I also agree that it is hard to see his path, given his lofty goals. At least he's challenging us to be better, and yes, I know we need more out of the president than to be challenged.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Much of Europe has free college. Why can't that happen here? I'm not arguing it should, I'm asking why that's like "build a wall"....when much of an entire continent either has it, or is moving that way.

 

Because what Bernie means is "free college for everyone" which is not what Europe does.  That's one of the biggest misnomers he himself has, much less those that support him.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think we need an election mandate in support of these kind of policy goals in order to start the engine of generating good practical ideas.  I'd prefer trial and error, especially at the state level to test out a variety of schemes, rather than debate on the speculative merits of a given plan (where ideology so often will the line of division).   

 

I really don't see what Bernie is proposing as all that radical, impossible or generally terrible in terms of societal goals.  In fact, I jive with them.  And I'd love to debate the policy in terms of effectiveness, rather than in terms of whether or not to do it...   

 

There is some experimentation with minimum wage at the state levels, I'd like to see that play out a bit before we start mandating a nation-wide $15.  I'm not afraid that the whole system is going to be turned upside down, but we're talking about something with a wide range of potential effects.  I'd rather see how those play out on a smaller level first.  

 

I think your second paragraph speaks to my issue - get behind his themes all you want, but that isn't the same as getting behind his policies.  You can do one without the other.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Because what Bernie means is "free college for everyone" which is not what Europe does.  That's one of the biggest misnomers he himself has, much less those that support him.

 

Fair distinction..... but they do have free college for those that go to college..... which I think is mostly what Sanders probably means, right?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fair distinction..... but they do have free college for those that go to college..... which I think is mostly what Sanders probably means, right?

 

No, he means free college.  If he wanted what Europe has he'd demand sweeping changes from the universities/colleges. (Not to mention lower levels of education)

 

And he's not, he's basically gold stamping the behavior of the universities the last few decades.  His model basically turns college into a live-in high school round 2.

[PseudoSABR]

 

No, he means free college.  If he wanted what Europe has he'd demand sweeping changes from the universities/colleges. (Not to mention lower levels of education)

 

And he's not, he's basically gold stamping the behavior of the universities the last few decades.  His model basically turns college into a live-in high school round 2.

I just take it as a given that the whole system would have to be reformed to institute whatever it is that Bernie is precisely saying. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I just take it as a given that the whole system would have to be reformed to institute whatever it is that Bernie is precisely saying. 

 

See I take him to mean what he says - he'll invent or use taxes in order to make sure no one pays for college.  I haven't heard him say, even one time, that part of the problem is the universities themselves.  

 

I think what he wants is to have the last generation and future ones unburdened by excessive loan debt.  Which is certainly a noble goal (and one I'd be quite happy to have happen), but again the attempt to solve it is really misguided.  As much as I want all that money every month back, I want even more for the solution to be better for society than simply using tax payer money to end the debts.

[Mike Sixel]

The goal is misguided, or the process to get there, or what?

 

College is over priced here. That's not really up for debate. I'd say it is more likely to get free or highly subsidized college here, than to reform the whole broken system.....not that i Like that solution, frankly.

[formerly33]

 

Much of Europe has free college. Why can't that happen here? I'm not arguing it should, I'm asking why that's like "build a wall"....when much of an entire continent either has it, or is moving that way.

I don't think we should have free college, and I'm a millennial.

 

I do, however, object to the system as it is today. Understandably, a higher education is pretty much a prerequisite to a good paying job, and though I haven't actually done my research on why colleges are so expensive (I guess this disqualifies me from conversing on the subject), I'm pretty sure they're taking advantage of this fact. They charge the maximum amount they know people are willing to pay - and I'm not saying I don't understand the business side of this scheme - but that price only goes up with increased competition.

 

Financial aid isn't a huge help, either. An example would be the college I used to dream of going to (I suppose this was largely triggered by peer pressure, etc. etc.). The tuition is over $40k a year. Even with scholarships based off of testing scores AND household income, I'd still be swamped in student loans. I guess that's what happens to most people, but my parents wouldn't cosign those loans because they didn't want to be stuck with paying them off if I died. That meant I either had to be reasonable or else wait to go to college until I was 24 or older.

 

Of course, going off our income (middle class) and the fact that I would only be the second person in college at the time, the minimal financial aid I would receive made complete sense. But our circumstance was a bit unusual as there are three kids after myself, all born within a few years, who need to go to college as well.

 

Obviously, the kids who go to these types of colleges are mostly upper class ... most people are willing to settle for less. That's why I'm starting out at a community college and then transferring to the U. They don't have an articulation agreement, however, and while I'm only taking courses that transfer into the U and making sure I get enough credits in every goal area, if I didn't do that (or if the U drops one or more of the courses over the next two years), I could end up taking three extra years to finish my BA. If that happens, although the UMN's tuition certainly isn't going to kill me, going to a community college will have been fruitless.

 

Less than twenty years ago, a friend of my parents' daughter got accepted to Oberlin on a merit based full ride. Today, if you want free tuition for a music degree, your only option is Curtis, and, well, I'm just not that caliber. Few people are. And the fact remains that community colleges don't have the highest standards, and I lucked out location-wise to get to finish my degree at Minnesota.

 

That said, based off our financial situation alone and completely ignoring my talent level, my only options are either starting out at a community college or else going to Curtis. That's why Bernie Sanders appeals to so many people. There is a problem; few people deny that. Bernie's not the solution by any stretch of the imagination, but you've got to admit attending college is simply becoming too challenging for middle class Americans.

 

I suppose if everyone did what I'm doing, it wouldn't be that bad - of course, tuition will continue to rise, and opting for starting out at a community college for a degree in music performance could provide major obstacles in the road going forward, but I'm okay with that. It's a risk I'm willing to take. Given the intense competition in the music world, I'm probably just being dumb, but then, whoever said the road to success was smooth!

[TheLeviathan]

 

The goal is misguided, or the process to get there, or what?

 

College is over priced here. That's not really up for debate. I'd say it is more likely to get free or highly subsidized college here, than to reform the whole broken system.....not that i Like that solution, frankly.

 

The process. I don't necessarily agree that even the goal is the right one, at least not right away.  We've had colleges become a for-profit model for so long I think we'll have a hard adjustment.  

 

I'm ok with subsidizing college at a much higher rate so long as there is a corresponding move to force college to a) raise their academic standards and become better at training students for the work place and b ) drop their tuition rates and spend their money more wisely.