What's new
By:

Sanders starting to kick some HC... whatever

I'm not a Clinton fan by any stretch, nor do I know anything about Sanders. So far, I haven't engaged much in the presidential election.

Frankly, however, the prospect of the Republicans controlling all three branches of government and possibly nominating several Supreme Court justices and/or hurtling the US headlong into a war with Iran is sufficiently frightening that I'd vote for a Chimpanzee were the Democrats to put one forward in the General Election.
 
Siro said:
This is a bit of a strawman. I don't remember anyone arguing for a capitalist anarchy. I actually find libertarians who make a religion out of individual freedom to be supremely obnoxious. No self-respecting economist that I've heard of argues for a fully unregulated economy. Regulation is very much a part of modern capitalism. The problem is that you're not seeing the forest for the trees. You start from the faulty leftist premise that the system has done us wrong, and that we should band together to fix it.
Click to expand...

dalamon said:
When you make a statement like "inhibiting growth to help people is oxymoronic", this is the implication that it leaves. My point is that growth has already been inhibited to help people. This is what regulation does. And it's been largely successful, as we both agree.
Click to expand...

dalamon said:
With this said, capitalism is a broad umbrella of multiple types. While "inhibiting growth to help people" may seem oxymoronic, nearly every contemporary capitalistic economic system has measures that inhibit growth, or regulations that reduce the maximization of growth of corporations. These regulations are widely instituted in order to help people, and they have decades of proof to prove that they work. That's why laissez-faire economics is a concept that's essentially absent in the modern world. While it may seem oxymoronic, it is simply something that already exists.
Click to expand...


Dala, you're essentially making an anti-Keynesian, Ayn Rand argument without realizing it. Please, for the love of Dante's knees, stop. :)

Regulation and redistribution can help or inhibit growth, depending on how they're implemented. Redistribution is an essential part of capitalism and helps growth more than inhibiting if done correctly. The same goes for regulation (in a vacuum, meaning not considering the rest of the globe). That's something the far right cannot comprehend anymore than the far left can comprehend market-based incentives.

Arguing that we should adopt comfort policies at the expense of growth is not in your best interest. It's also divisive on the grand scale.
 
I like Bill and I like HC. I don't get the guilt by association hate. This country has always been all about career politicians. The stability works well. HC is very competent as well as qualified. I'll vote for her.
 
franklin said:
I like Bill and I like HC. I don't get the guilt by association hate. This country has always been all about career politicians. The stability works well. HC is very competent as well as qualified. I'll vote for her.
Click to expand...

Competant? Really?
 
Howard said:
The job loss comment was from the elimination of choices discussion we had when you said we could get rid of BMW or Honda as examples. You can re-read my posts on them, too lazy to write it out on a phone again.

Again, corn is healthy, producers made from it are not always healthy. I could say that about any crop, but carry on. Fwiw, I'm ok with taking away subsidization and have been vocal about it. The money farmers get just props up farmers who aren't good enough to make it on their own. They go out, larger farms then buy their ground reducing thr amount of farmers and increasing the size of family owned corporate farms and people bitch. Let it happen.

I'm well aware lobbying exists in agriculture Dala, my family is involved in it. We had to lobby against the First Lady last year. If you think we're able to lobby people to get the government to pay for our equipment, you're nuts. Do you even know the costs involved? Let's say we want more people to grow potatoes. They'll need a combine and a wind rower. That's about $600k for a decent pair. They'll need storage. Building will run a minimum of $700k, and that's just for one, they'll probably need more. It's a more labor intensive crop, need more hired hands. Probably need another tractor, that's $200k. Lots of other equipment that will total around $500k. That's just one farm Dala. What kind of subsidy is going to pay that? I don't know how much you know of subsidies, but we don't get anywhere close to that much.

Perhaps you've never heard of climate zones, but they predicate what you can grow. I can assure you that I cannot grow cherries here for example. Anyways, I'm not going to argue that because it's pointless, what you can grow in your garden isn't the same as what your neighbor a mile away can grow. You have a complete lack of understanding of agriculture, which is fine, I don't know much about molecular biology, but it might help to listen to somebody who does know just a little. Continuing, you said fresh, local produce. While I'm well aware of how to preserve crops, preserved crops aren't fresh. I mean, we can't be eating canned vegetables! I know roughly 4-5 farmers here who have their own greenhouses. They use them for disease purposes. They cannot be used to grow other crops in the winter for that purpose. There are tons of other farmers who don't have greenhouses, and even if they did, no way to water them. Water is expensive. It's also not realistic to store vast amounts of produce during the winter, farmers don't have little one acre plots man, we have a lot of land. That requires vast amounts of storage, which is expensive, and most farmers are pretty cash poor. I suppose we can get the government to pay for it though! It's an ideal thought, but it's just not realistic.

As for the last points, I just don't think we should force people to put a business where they don't want to. Give them incentives. Tax breaks for putting a building up and selling groceries, absolutely. Legislating them, forcing them, I don't think so. You also didn't answer my question, would you do it? Would you put up your hard earned money to start a business in a crime infested zone? Be honest. Remember, it's your lifestyle, your family at stake. I think this issue is more complex than you're willing to admit.
Click to expand...

Corn is not bad are you mental? It is pretty much the most evil crop ever. Pretty much all cultivation like ones Dalamon lists cause cancer, autism and other allergy related disorders. I get assumption that Dalamon is a Lopi or what you will call mountain person or lives in a compound so I can agree to grow own crops for isolation like that.

Better to live like nomad. Eat berries and roots and carrion when you can find mostly fresh.
 
Ann Coulter knows who she wants to be the Democratic nominee for president, and who that person is, well, it may surprise you.

She wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, and thinks that if Bernie gets the nod, he’ll beat whoever the Republicans come up with to run against him.

You won’t hear me say this often, but Ann Coulter is right.

If Bernie Sanders ends up being the Democratic nominee for president, and it looks more and more every day like he will be, his Republican opponent is going to have a very hard time beating him.

And that’s because of all the Democratic candidates running, Bernie Sanders has the best chance of capturing Republican votes.

I’ve seen how Bernie does this, up close and personal.

Despite its reputation as a place filled with liberal hippies, Vermont, like most of rural northern New England, is home to a lot of conservatives.

Anyone running for statewide office there needs to win these conservatives’ votes, and Bernie is great at doing that.

Back in 2000 when Louise and I were living in Vermont, it wasn’t all that uncommon to see his signs on the same lawn as signs that said “W for President.”

Seriously, I’m not kidding.

And as NPR’s “Morning Edition” found out last year, some of Bernie’s biggest fans are in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom, the poorest and most conservative part of the state.

It’s people from the Northeast Kingdom who’ve overwhelmingly elected Bernie to almost 20 years in Congress and two straight terms as senator, and it’s people like them in the rest of the country who will probably send Bernie to the White House if he gets the Democratic nomination for president.

So why is that?

Why is Bernie Sanders, a socialist, so popular with people who should hate “socialism?”

The answer is pretty simple.

While Americans disagree on social issues like gay marriage and abortion, they’re actually pretty unified on the bread and butter economic issues that Bernie has made the core of his campaign.

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, a recent poll by the Progressive Change Institute, shows that Americans overwhelmingly agree with Bernie on key issues like education, health care and the economy.

Like Bernie, 75 percent of Americans poll support fair trade that “protects workers, the environment and jobs.”

Seventy-one percent support giving all students access to a debt-free college education.

Seventy-one percent support a massive infrastructure spending program aimed at rebuilding our broken roads and bridges, and putting people back to work.

Seventy percent support expanding Social Security.

Fifty-nine percent support raising taxes on the wealthy so that millionaires pay the same amount in taxes as they did during the Reagan administration.

Fifty-eight percent support breaking up the big banks.

Fifty-five percent support a financial transaction or Robin Hood tax.

Fifty-one percent support single payer health care, and so and so on.

ADVERTISEMENT

Pretty impressive, right?

And here’s the thing – supporting Social Security, free college, breaking up the big banks, aren’t “progressive” policies, they’re just common sense, and 60 years ago they would have put Bernie Sanders smack dab in the mainstream of my father’s Republican Party.

This is why Ann Coulter is so scared of Bernie becoming the Democratic nominee.

She knows that he speaks to the populist, small “d” democratic values that everyday Americans care about, regardless of their political affiliation.

That’s the really radical part of Bernie’s 2016 campaign, and what’s what maybe, just maybe, might make him the 45th President of the United States
Click to expand...

#TheBern
 
What is Mr. Sanders take on USA's current gun violence and lack of police force epidemic?

I mean, I realize blacks are being shot by cops and democrats hate this but we also want more police to protect and serve the innocents which means more blacks will get shot temporarily. We cannot have this both ways. We need more police and stricter enforcement t to make clean the crime problem we face. After we scare the crime into submission we will not longer worry on cops shooting the blacks. They will not have to.
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];1106853 said:
What is Mr. Sanders take on USA's current gun violence and lack of police force epidemic?

I mean, I realize blacks are being shot by cops and democrats hate this but we also want more police to protect and serve the innocents which means more blacks will get shot temporarily. We cannot have this both ways. We need more police and stricter enforcement t to make clean the crime problem we face. After we scare the crime into submission we will not longer worry on cops shooting the blacks. They will not have to.
Click to expand...

What about... not arming police like an invading army? What about... training police to do something OTHER than pull a gun immediately?

Studies do show that more police can reduce crime, but, more than that, more EFFECTIVE police really reduce crime, at a lower cost both financially and in human terms.

As for Bernie's stance, I think it's addressed at least in part (in somewhat florid language) on his page: https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/
 
Iowa turns out next and NH shortly after. Any thoughts from anyone on how the democratic primary will turn out?

Personally still preferring Sanders over Clinton - she just never struck me as invested enough in any of the things she was saying and it came across as trying to appeal to voters. Really support Sanders on healthcare/the finance sector, his foreign policy takes sounds decent enough, and there aren't really any issues I'd say I'm against him on(off the top of my head at least).
 
Bernie wants to legalize it. At least thats the impression I get.

I reckon that's enough for me
 
Eminence said:
Iowa turns out next and NH shortly after. Any thoughts from anyone on how the democratic primary will turn out?

Personally still preferring Sanders over Clinton - she just never struck me as invested enough in any of the things she was saying and it came across as trying to appeal to voters. Really support Sanders on healthcare/the finance sector, his foreign policy takes sounds decent enough, and there aren't really any issues I'd say I'm against him on(off the top of my head at least).
Click to expand...

I just don't think Bernie is going to get there. The reality is that he can't get enough black voters to turn out for him even though he's the best non-Obama candidate for that demographic ever (and in truth, I think he might be better for them than Obama). Super Tuesday is going to be hard on everyone who's feeling the Bern.



fishonjazz said:
Bernie wants to legalize it. At least thats the impression I get.

I reckon that's enough for me
Click to expand...

Real talk: As long as you consume primarily in your own home and don't bother anyone else, drugs are already soft legal in this country.

I am personally aggrieved by the incredible amount of hypocrisy, propaganda, puritanism, and waste that goes into the war on drugs. I give money to the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychadelic Studies every year. But it's not going to be a D-Rule in how I vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top