• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lylawinesnob said:
We do not live in a pure capitalist society, it is mixed Oligarchy and socialism.

The Poor must suffer for the crime of being poor. Low wages, no benefits, social safety net half the size of corporate subsidies. STARVE POOR PEOPLE! YOU SHOULD WORK HARDER. Capitalism!
The banks are too big to fail. They need a bail out! Socialism!

The Billionaire banks lost all the middle classes money and homes with risky speculation that should have never been legally reintroduced by repealing Glass-Stegall I mean, the reason they passed Glass Steagall after the great depression is because BANKS and SECURITIES firms started gambling with the market. You know, like the stuff that precipitated the 2008 crash

The more money you have, the less you have to worry about breaking the law, paying taxes, or basically anything if you can afford to buy a senator or representative, it is all good! Need some government money?!?! Buy a public servant today!. OLIGARCHY!

The government is not a traditional business. The business of government is to provide for the public defense and common welfare. The government is not supposed to be good or evil, simply just and equitable. The government is not a business, it is not intended to bring in profit. The Federal Government is gaining far to much power, power that it should never have seized, and should be divested back where it belongs.

Bernie is a good man, but he misses the point. You cannot take from the top and give to the bottom as he suggest. You cannot take from the middle and give to the bottom and the top as the is done now. The only thing that can be done is a monumental decrease in the percentage of income tax that is the same percentage no matter what that percentage amounts to. The same slice of pie, no matter how big the pie. It would be simpler burn it to the ground and start over than try and clean it all up.
Click to expand...

The oligarchy I agree with, but the banks are no less capitalist than the rest of the country. Their workers do not own the means of production, they compete on a private marketplace and their surpluses are divided up at profits. You can't even have socialism in one country, let alone socialism in one sector of one economy in one country.
 
Bardy, I think what he means is that in the US, the poor are expected to abide by "capitalism" in its most ruthless incarnation, whereas large corporations get to enjoy a form of socialism (backed/funded by the state/citizens taxes) whenever they need it. Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. Its obviously being used as a euphemism since its not "really" socialism, but I understand the reference.

Edit: I don't agree with the proposed tax scheme at all, though. I think the poor should pay around 5-10%, lower to middle middle class around 20%, upper middle 25-30%, lower upper around 30-40%, and multi-millionaires and billionaires 50-70%. Why? Because they owe it back to their country, that's why.
 
Last edited:
The primary purpose of this article isn’t to make any of Bernie Sanders’ Democratic or Republican competition look comparatively good – regardless of who’s elected the next president of the United States, the builders of the American Empire, particularly weapon manufacturers, will be happy.

The intent of this piece is to call out Democrats, liberals and progressives who are hysterically supporting Bernie Sanders, while still calling themselves supporters of peace.

As David Masciotra wrote in Salon, “Liberal supporters of Sanders who … flippantly cast concerns about his collusion with the Pentagon establishment aside with “no one is perfect” or “better than Hillary” refrains, should scrutinize their own values, and answer how they rank more refugees, corpses and amputees in the Middle East and Africa against largely unenforceable rhetoric about “standing up to Wall Street.”

The worst part of the silence surrounding America’s aggression is not the obliviousness of average Americans, but the indifference of liberal activists… Rebuttals involving his excellent policy proposals on healthcare, education, and social services are insufficient: No issue rises above the moral, political and financial emergency of war and militarism,” stated Masciotra.

Opposing war is an either/or

For a person to say they are opposed to U.S. wars while supporting and voting for a candidate who is not 100% opposed to all wars is straight-up hypocrisy. And Sanders doesn’t come anywhere close to 100%. Indeed, he’s closer to 0%: Sanders supports current US engagements in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Ukraine.

Sanders also participates in the dangerous provocation of Russia and Iran, and is vague, at best, on the Israel Palestine issue (he typically votes for funding to Israel andsupported their 2014 war on Gaza).

To make matters worse, Sanders has said he would continue Barack Obama’s deadly drone program, which is to say he supports the way wars will be waged in the future. This is the same drone program that results in the killing of innocent people. According to documents revealed by Jeremy Scahill, during one five month period, US drone strikes only killed 10% of their intended targets – in other words, 90% of those killed were innocent civilians. Sanders wants to continue such a program.

Caring about overseas victims of US wars is lowest on the totem pole

Why is war the one area in which liberals are willing to accept the “lesser of two evils?” Why do they accept promises of “less war” in place of guarantees of “no war?”

To emphasize this point, consider the outrage in respective circles if the following were to happen:

-Gloria Allred donated money to the Bill Cosby rape defense fund.
-PETA members purchased products from a cosmetic company that does animal testing.
-David Duke donated money to the Black Lives Matter movement.
-The Occupy movement endorsed a pro-Wall Street candidate.
-Members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving helped publicize an Anheuser-Busch ad campaign.
-Caitlyn Jenner endowed a chair at Liberty University.
Preposterous, right? But it’s happening right now with self-described antiwar liberals.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth

Liberals cheer when Sanders says he doesn’t want to kick Muslims out of the US, but they turn a blind eye to the fact that he wants Muslims in the Middle East to bomb and shoot each other.

Sanders talks about supporting women’s rights in the US at the same time he supportsone of the world’s worst regime on women’s rights – Saudi Arabia.

But since he’s not as much of a hawk as Hillary Clinton, liberals are enthusiastically supporting him.

Would those same liberals support Sanders if he were just a little bit better than – but still bad – on gay marriage, the environment, workers rights, race relations and a woman’s right to choose?

Of course they wouldn’t. For liberals to rationalize their support of Sanders on the basis that his foreign policy is not as imperialistic as Clinton’s speaks volumes. Consider if one rationalized their support for:

-al-Qaeda because they are less brutal than ISIS.
-A rapist because he only rapes adults but not children.
-An airline pilot who comes to work high on cocaine but not heroin.
-The premise that Warren Buffet is part of the working class because his wealth accumulation is less than Bill Gates’.

Sanders panders

And Sanders supporters fail to recognize the obvious: Sanders panders to the war machine. If Sanders does this in order to become president, imagine what he’d do in his re-election bid? After tasting the nectar of being the “most powerful man in the world” does anyone seriously believe Sanders would stop accommodating the architects of the American Empire?

As the World Socialist Website wrote, “if Sanders goes on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency, he will betray the aspirations of his supporters flagrantly and with extraordinary speed. A thousand excuses will be brought forward to explain why the wars must continue abroad and nothing can be done to rein in Wall Street at home. Bernie Sanders is not the herald of [a movement outside the two-party system], but a false prophet who is neither genuinely socialist nor genuinely independent.”

When asking a liberal why Obama hasn’t shut down Guantanamo Bay as promised, they spout something like, “one person can’t change everything.” If that’s the case, then why should anyone care who gets elected president?

Those who claim to be antiwar but who support pro-war presidential candidates are disingenuous and diminish what it truly means to be antiwar.
Click to expand...

-Chris Ernesto
 
Well, Sanders isn't much of a socialist to begin with, rather just being on the fringe of the mainstream American left. I wouldn't expect him to hold on to any of these ideals in his second term, particularly with Republicans and conservative Democrats dragging their feet the whole way.

Phil.McKeer said:
Edit: I don't agree with the proposed tax scheme at all, though. I think the poor should pay around 5-10%, lower to middle middle class around 20%, upper middle 25-30%, lower upper around 30-40%, and multi-millionaires and billionaires 50-70%. Why? Because they owe it back to their country, that's why.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound so bad, so long as these ulti-billion dollar individuals and entities actually paid their taxes. We could lower taxes for everyone if everyone paid the taxes they were supposed to pay. Another problem is state tax. Citizens are being charged by the feds as well as their state governments. Perhaps there could be a system in place to raise federal tax rates (including financial speculation, inheritance etc) to lower state taxes and allocate federal funds to the states, in order to lessen the state tax burden on the state resident.
 
Bardeaux said:
The oligarchy I agree with, but the banks are no less capitalist than the rest of the country. Their workers do not own the means of production, they compete on a private marketplace and their surpluses are divided up at profits. You can't even have socialism in one country, let alone socialism in one sector of one economy in one country.
Click to expand...
And yet we do. In this nation it is socialism for the banks and capitalism for the poor who used those banks. Bailing out the banks was socialism, capitalism would have been to let them fail, as the market dictated they should. Capitalism was allowing all those people who were manipulated by those banks, lose their homes.
 
I got into a political conversation at work today. It seems that my coworkers who share an office with me are for Clinton and Kasich. They both seemed to have the opinion that Bernie Sanders is promising more than he can truly deliver on, and that he is not experienced enough to run the country. There also seemed to be some concerns about the costs of the proposed programs. I disagree that Bernie is inexperienced, and I think that regardless of if he can deliver on every promise, he is fighting for the right things and that is what counts. Where there is a will, there is a way, and with the access to a complete cabinet and the powers that come with the Presidency, I have no doubt that Bernie could deliver on some of his goals in a financially logical way.
 
cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
They both seemed to have the opinion that Bernie Sanders is promising more than he can truly deliver on, and that he is not experienced enough to run the country.
Click to expand...

Cringe. This just shows how firmly the common person is enthralled by popular media bullhonkey. If half a century of political activism, three decades of public office and two decades in the Congress is inexperienced, then I'm motherfucking Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.
 
Last edited:
it's politics 101 - talk about how your opponent is unqualified - or too politically inexperienced - to be president

the republicans used this a lot in the 2008 election, persistently referring to obama as a mere 'community organizer' and his lack of political experience, while ignoring his being editor of harvard law review, a teacher of constitutional law at chicago law school, a three-term senator in the illinois state senate and a united states senator.

so where is the republican chorus of "he's not qualified" about trump?

alasdair
 
Bardeaux said:
Looks like I won't be voting in 2016.
Click to expand...
Then they won. Easier than they thought they would, mind you. Or perhaps just as easy(?).

I'm not discouraged at all by the superdelegate brouhaha. I would love to see the uproar caused by delegates voting AGAINST the will of the people. against the popular vote. As of now, their votes are not locked in. They may well switch to Sanders, yet. Probably not, but regardless, I am still voting. Fuck them.
 
This has to be one if the most depressing elections I can remember being alive for. I try to be an optimist. I never thought bush was evil, just stupid. I didn't hate Obama until after he got elected, I never bought into his campaign of change, I just figured he'd be more crappy less unconstitutional.

This time I hate every candidate with any chance before they're even president. But hey, I'm only 27, I wasn't even paying attention when the last Clinton was president, I'm sure there have been other equally depressing elections.
 
Hillary Clinton ran against Obama in 2008. Demonizes Sanders for suggesting someone else run against him in 2012.
Hillary Clinton demonizes Sanders for criticizing a few Obama policies. She stokes the "Obama is a secret Muslim" flames in 2008 on 60 minutes.

 
Max Power said:
Then they won. Easier than they thought they would, mind you. Or perhaps just as easy(?).

I'm not discouraged at all by the superdelegate brouhaha. I would love to see the uproar caused by delegates voting AGAINST the will of the people. against the popular vote. As of now, their votes are not locked in. They may well switch to Sanders, yet. Probably not, but regardless, I am still voting. Fuck them.
Click to expand...

Oh I'll be voting next month in the primaries, I'm just not so sure about November.

PSL again, or maybe Greens.

And don't you worry Maxwell, there are plenty of rallies and nationwide demonstrations in the works to show our disapproval of the delegate system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top