Style Points (Political Thread)
rockstar666
Illinois
I'm watching the Democratic debate and it struck me that they are talking about very detailed policy issues. I watched the GOP debates too, and that was all about cheering on vague idealism and trying to establish a cult of personality. It's a striking contrast, no matter what your personal political views are. Clinton ans Sanders have some divergent views but both are eager to address the issues without partisan bias. Instead they talk policy. It's refreshing to see how they have a different approach without bashing the GOP or each other. It's nice to see adults for a change even when I disagree with some of what they say. What a rare sight: politicians not being jingoistic idiots.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
58 comments
Income inequality
How they plan to make healthcare affordable for the poor when they repeal Obama care
Affordable education
The racist(or maybe just inept but i doubt it) justice system
The fact that prisons are overcrowded with disproportionate amounts of blacks and Latinos
I mean have they even said anything about global warming?
I kinda hope Trump somehow wins the nomination. I think he'd be a disaster as president, but he'd make for a fun election.
Politicians do whatever it takes to get elected, and in this instance it just happens to fit both democratic candidate's interests to act a little less like spoiled brats than usual. But if either one falls clearly behind the other showing that the current strategy isn't working, the looser will quickly revert back to child like attacks. This is especially true if the ice queen falls further behind.
The last 7 years of failed leadership has frustrated Americans which is why we see so many Republican candidates, and so few Democratic options. Who from the left will want to step in and lead to pick up the shattered mess left behind from a "random walk" administration? Usually someone with nothing to lose. Hillary and Bernie fit that category.
Income inequality is just you reap what you sow? OK you make more than a high school dropout as you should, but why is it men still make more than women doing the same job? Why is it athletes and rappers make millions while there are people starving and living on the street? Why do these businesses make so much money but don't want to give their employees healthcare? Why does the top 1% own 90% of the wealth?
Thanks for bringing up the release of convicted criminals.
I knew about his position on free health care, free college, income inequality, but when I heard his speech saying he wants to open up our prisons, he confirmed my thoughts - he's dangerous.
I will take Hillary - even those ass-clowns Cruz and Trump -- before that Socialist.
Bernie is what? 73 or 74? Given the stress that comes with being President, yeah that's a little old. But McCain was close to that in 08 and I bet that didn't bother some people.
Do not look to government for much of anything other than administering the laws that protect life, security, private property, and free speech/assembly. Government has nothing to give anyone, other than what it takes from others. And in such transactions, government adds no value, and instead adds dependence that crushes liberty.
all this talk about equal pay by the democrats is comparing things like a female waitress to a male engineer. Of course the pay will not be equal. Democrats ignore the facts while making it sound like they are spewing out facts. You have to compare apples to apples or the pay will not be equal. If there were only two jobs in this country, secretary of state and my job, equal pay would mean I should get a $100,000 or more salary increase right? That's what the democrats are arguing about in my opinion. It's not apples to apples.
Vat taxes, those tend to skyrocket or did in Europe I heard.
tax cuts for the rich. it doesn't bother me if those with higher incomes pay more income tax. Our tax code has been set up that way all my life.
denouncing groups like Trump has done. If the people are American and can vote, we are all in this together. That's just being hateful and won't get votes.
no growth agenda except to say with me, we won't have that problem.
no talk about stopping the collapse of social security by getting rid of the income limit and then reducing benefits. Ok only sanders proposed getting rid of the income limit but he wants all my paycheck. Elect a few sanders and I think we would have to work for food rations, a car ration, and a living house ration.
Despite congressional gridlock, I like where America is at now in the big picture. On the plus side, unemployment is low, crime rates are ,ow, we're not fighting in any "major" expeditionary wars, we're seeing huge progress on LGBT rights, we have same sex marriage, and the majority of Americans support abortion rights in some form as well as some kind of gun control, but not outright bans. While health care is still a work in progress, we are better off overall with Obamacare than without it.
I agree with all of the above positions, so if it was a 2 term Republican president ending his run, I would not be one of those people saying the past 7+ years were a failure. Quite the opposite. I guess I'm "conservative" as I'm not looking for any sweeping changes, like my more liberal Republican friends who are running for president. Certainly Sanders is more radical than Clinton, but she's a warmonger so it's a tough choice for me. Sending troops to the Middle East only produces dead soldiers and no military or political gains. Quite the opposite actually.
I was more comfortable voting for Sanders when I thought he was wasn't electable for all the reasons you guys say: he's old, he'll raise both the deficit and debt and his most ambitious programs have little chance of passing even a Democratic Senate and House. Hillary is not very likable (i.e. trustworthy) personally and it's hard to say what she stands for besides the typical Democratic platform and sending in troops to solve problems.
But there are no Republican options for me except Kaisch. So we'll see how it shakes out.
"Drug dealers aren't people"... Then what are they?
I never said nor implied this.
I hope people consider that question before they vote. It appears many have some VERY wrong ideas about the answer to that question.
We have to give up some of our liberty for the common good, such as in unfettered gun ownership and conscription in the military for national defense when necessary. We also allow ourselves to be taxed to pay for it all.
The two parties differ on where all these lines are drawn. How much taxation is too little or too much? Are abortion rights and gay marriage unjustly trampling on the rights of others or are they rights we all have? Is healthcare for all in the national interest or just a luxury for the rich? Should corporations be able to spend unlimited money backing political candidates?
These are the questions our politicians dance around with their rhetoric; when couched in plain language it become much easier to take the politics away from policy and have intelligent debate.
Of course, for too many of us, intelligent debate isn't really the point. We have turned debate into an entertainment industry in the media, and that really takes away from the whole process IMHO no matter if you're a Sanders liberal or Cruz conservative.
It's a tug at the heart strings.
But the lack of a middle class IS a huge economic problem. Access to higher education and a general public that shuns math and science are two factors in the lack of high paying jobs for even recent college graduates. If you major in journalism or anthropology as opposed to engineering, computer science or physics, how can you expect to find a high paying job? The fact one major party rejects science as viable enterprise isn't helping. If the GOP embraced the science of climate change it might go a long way in getting our children and young adults to become worthy of higher paying jobs.
Gay marriage is a case where if you truly believe in liberty, you have to support it.
Gun ownership is a case where it's the gun owners liberty vs. The liberty and security of everyone else. It's important to strike a reasonable balance.
Pure liberty is anarchy.
Your driving example is actually a good sign though; when traffic lights first came out, there were people who thought it was stupid to expect anyone to obey them. But now almost everyone does, even with no traffic around. Yes...we CAN be taught to do the "right thing".
I am a bit disappointed that there are not more choices this time. Where as the Republicans have lots of choices, people with different personas and backgrounds.
How would people feel about a combined Clinton - Sanders ticket, and which way do they think it should be.
SJG
Golden Dawn Documentary - Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ecjbag6…
Inside The Secret Teachings Of ALL Ages (MANLY P HALL) HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNUQ1f8U…
Stan Tenen - Decoding the Hebrew Text of Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMDXr7fj…
Giant Outdoor Chess Set
http://www.chesshouse.com/giant_chess_se…
Did you know that the address number of the Masonic Temple is Salt Lake City is 666?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-i…
Albert Pike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pik…
they don't mention that he is cofounder of the KKK
http://civilwarstudies.org/articles/vol_…
http://freedocumentaryonline.org/metaphy…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evo…
most people consider this guy to be a fascist
http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/f…
Julius Evola as something similar to Albert Pike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_Man…
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Golden-Daw…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Reg…
Good point, and relevant to the questions about the role of government.
Consider a straight-line "spectrum" that measures "how much control does central government have over citizens' lives?" The opposite extremes of that spectrum are Total Control (totalitarianism) and No Control (anarchy). Picture where our Constitution is on that spectrum, and vote for candidates who most closely align with that.
(The Constitution is closer to the center than to either extreme, but is on the No Control side of that center. Strictly limited government, which is forbidden to do anything it's not required to do.)
SJG
The nonsense political doctrine of Libertarianism is based on submission to the herd via it's social standards, while at the same time re-inforcing the governmental authority.
When I've crossed swords with some people of the Libertarian persuasion, and when they realize that I could really impact them, know what they do? They are the first to threaten a lawsuit, and then they are mortified and indignant when they are forced to see that that won't work.
Libertarians hide behind government authority, while peaching an anti-government line!
Ha Ha Ha
SJG
Balance is important. Our Constitution establishes government with STRICT limits on its power and scope. That's because governments naturally tend to grow in power, size and scope, and don't naturally tend to remain limited.
When I oppose the government, as I am now in some affairs f2f, I am opposing its support of the herd. In this case it's real estate developers.
SJG
https://sites.google.com/site/sjgportal/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/18/ap…
Also Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/29/fo…
Discussion of Front Room Makeout Sessions
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…
Jestrite50 on requirement of front room makeout sessions
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
and here:
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
Anyone ever seen this? It does not look good!
http://www.pornkillslove.com/
Not sure where this is based, or that it even has a base, but the 385 area code should be Salt Lake City. Reminds me of the views of ColdnShallow, and of some other moralistic women I know. Shows me all the more so why Porn, Strip Clubs, and P4P Sex are so important.
Doors - The End
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUIQgEV…