jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (36 posts)

Let's talk presidential candidates and [b]issues[/b]

  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago

    I choose to support a candidate based on issues, which is not to say that I wouldn't rule out a candidate based on behavior alone (Trump, for example).  However, I overwhelmingly base my vote on who I most agree with most on the issues.  A candidate's personal behavior and demeanor is less important to me than what they will strive to do once they are in office (again, except for extreme outliers like Trump).

    So, let's hear your stance on the issues and which candidates most reflect your ideas about how this country should move forward.

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

      The issues drive me closer to Sanders. The focus on the needs of the economic well being of the middle class as the heart of American life is tantamount.

      That means government oriented in this direction rather than hoping for crumbs from the table of the most affluent and powerful will insure the  viability of our economic system and that the forces unpleasant revolutionary fervor can be kept at bay

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        I have spoken with people who like Bernie's economic policies but are concerned about his lack of foreign policy experience.  I point out that Obama lacked foreign policy experience, too, as have many presidential candidates, so unless one has always worried about this aspect of a candidate, it seems like a hollow criticism.

        Do you think his economic goals, such as Medicare for All and no tuition at public universities, are achievable?  Can he persuade Congress to adopt such policies?

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

          As for the current economic goals they would be impossible without a sea change in our present Congressional makeup. But what difference, an obstructionist GOP dominated House and Senate still have to be overcome regardless of the Dem president elect next fall. The only hope is with the momentum that I believed came with a Sanders candidacy would have coattails for Senate and House races. Where the current partisan division of congress would disappear. Otherwise, why would we expect any more cooperation from the GOP than that President Obama received in the last 7 years? While Clinton is just another politician climbing the stairs with luggage, the Sanders campaign may well be revolutionary and gain enough support to dislodge the status-quo in Congress. Without that, any serious changes are unlikely.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            We think alike in this regard.  :-)

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            While I normally approve of an "obstructionist" congress, that feeling has faded with the tremendous partisanship we've seen in the past few presidents (whether D or R).  Still, overall, I do think it best that there is opposition to a presidents plans; if (an honest) congress cannot agree that a plan is best with over 50% agreement, perhaps it is NOT the best thing for the country and should be dropped for something that can carry over half the legislature...where the legislature votes according to their personal feelings and opinions rather than a strict party line.  Where politicians are more concerned with the good of the country rather than maintaining their job. 

            Which brings us to Trump.  Like or not, he is providing a very good race for the presidency, and an awful lot of people are not only hearing it but finding it agrees with their own position.  Not necessarily their position as to specific matters facing the nation, but their position that Washington is failing us all miserably.  As others have said, he is finding a resonance with the people that other politicians, including Clinton (and she IS a consummate politician whatever I think of her), is not.  But the people don't seem to want that consummate politician, with their lies, power plays and strings to the rich and powerful, as a leader - this simple fact may well land Trump in the position.

            Where he will find a congress with both sides united against anything he says or wants.  He doesn't follow the party platform and will lose the R's in congress and the D's already hate anything remotely connected to the R party.  Even independents won't be happy with a President that is not a politician they can understand and manipulate.  Will we finally have a be-partisan agreement that anything the Presidents says is to be automatically rejected until they can get another one of their own in the position?

            What then?  Can he convince congress that his ideas, shorn of party affiliation, should be considered anyway?  Will congress take note of his election and conclude that party politics is NOT the way to go, that the people of the country are re-establishing control of their destiny?  Or will they gang up on him with zero chance of getting anything done simply because he is not one of them, refuses to pander to big money or party leaders? 

            It could be a very interesting few years, with the future of the country hanging on the balance.  For if Trump does succeed, the D's are going to have to give up their excessive socialism.  The R's are going to have to let fall their insistence on "christian values" in favor of people's rights, and business is going to have to come back to the country.  We're going to have to return to being a productive nation instead of one of paper pushers and business is not geared towards that; they are instead geared towards shuffling paperwork to make their profit.  Buying and selling, shuffling money around, rather than actually producing anything.  Trump in office could be a major shock to all the movers and shakers in the country.

            Or it could be business as usual, with powerful party leaders controlling the country in conjunction with corporations and the rich if Clinton manages to eke out a win.  We shall see!

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I think that there has been far too much gridlock on the conduct of the people's business in Washington. Being obstructionist plays a role in it. So, all of us have to go to 'all or nothing' politics to get anything done, since compromise seems to not be the order of the day.

              This is the information age, Wilderness, that is how people make money, by pushing paper. I don't know, the cost of labor here may be prohibitive and jobs 'producing things' are produced more cheaply abroad. Trump says he plans to overcome this, HOW? Regardless of what conservatives say, there is no chance of Americans being able to subsist on the Mexican wage of $3.00/hour. So what happens to our standard of living?

              Trump does not have a chance, bombast does not work in an environment where only negotiation and persuasion will do. He needs to stick with "Celebrity Apprentice" where he is King of all he surveys. Because, that is not going to happen in Washington.  Trump is a Republican, so he is about 'party politics' and he is an aristocrat who would never betray his class standing merely in the interests of the people. He is that limburger cheese sprayed with a little Chanel No. 5 to mask the scent.

              Yes, he will find that Congress united against him for just the reasons that you noted. As he is more Trump than conservative, that will trouble the GOP operatives.

              Would you feel the same way about 'obstruction' if the situation were reversed?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                "This is the information age, Wilderness, that is how people make money, by pushing paper."

                Well, it is since we shipped all of our production overseas.  Except the service and construction companies, anyway, and even then most of the materials used come from abroad.

                "I don't know, the cost of labor here may be prohibitive and jobs 'producing things' are produced more cheaply abroad."

                It is prohibitive, and will remain so as long as consumer greed demands the lowest price without regard to the needs of the country or their neighbors need for a job.  Although I doubt it is really a useful strategy in the long run, tariffs and taxes on imports could change that.

                But Trump does have a chance to be elected; a very good one.  Saying that because he is running under the R banner is proof he is all about party politics isn't true - he has left the platform too many times to think otherwise. 

                Sure.  Actual "obstruction" needs to cease, but we will always have differences in opinion, and will probably always have two ruling parties to provide that opinion for our politicians regardless of need or the opinion of the people.  We just need to back off the party line a little (or a lot!), and let objective reason rather than party leaders control the vote.  And I'll add that "obstruction" doesn't mean that one party or the other doesn't have free reign to pass anything they want or even a specific bit of law.  It means that anything coming from one party, good or bad, is voted down by the other.  Much like voting for anyone with a "D" by their name without regard to the person being voted for.

                1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                  Alternative Primeposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  In REALITY, the Primary reason WHY Corporations EX-Patriate JOBs & Equipment to FOREIGN Lands is to "MAXIMIZE Profits" in a concerted effort to fill a CEO & Executive Officer's Pockets with Cash & Assets and of course to avoid a SHAREHOLDER Collapse in Value ~ It's that simple ~ You need to understand Wall Street GREED before you could possibly understand the FAILED System of Capitalism ~

                  Corpoartions have been MOVING Assets to Foreign Countries for decades and ALL the  Massive TAX Gifts and or Appeasement by Radical CONservative Republican Politicians will NEVER change this MIGRATION ~ Just the FACTS ~

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    So?  Produce numbers, please, that show net income before and after moving work overseas, along with company size and with inflation factored in.

                    While you would very much like to demonize corporations with claims of 20, 50 or even 100% profit margins, they just aren't there.  The primary reason for moving operations to other countries is to remain competitive, not to make a killing in profits.  And that comes down to consumer greed that refuses to pay a living wage to the workers making what they want.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image79
                    Ken Burgessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Incorrect, they move them to foreign nations because our laws are written up in a way that benefits the Corporations for doing so... the primary culprit for that was the Clinton backed NAFTA/GATT which effectively cut our Nation's throat.  Should NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. be rewritten to favor our nation, or totally scrapped, then the majority of Corporations would return jobs back to America because it would cost them more money not to... its just a matter of changing our trade agreements.
                    But the only President who would attempt such a thing, is one not beholden to the Lobbyists and Corporations that put him into Office.  In other words, under Clinton things will only get worse... an outsider like Trump at least might pull something off.

                2. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  lowest price without regard to the needs of the country or their neighbors need for a job.  Although I doubt it is really a useful strategy in the long run, tariffs and taxes on imports could change that.

                  Isn't that the basic tenet of capitalism that conservatives say is always worth preserving without interference? Tariffs and punitive actions that Trump's speaks about, again, run against the grain. For the conservative the tenets of capitalism are the equivalent of the law of gravity. The aristocrat class does not fear Trump nor his ideas as anything more than a clever diversion of the masses from the real culprits, of which Trump is one.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    You've implied that before - that conservatives want zero interference in business.  And it is no more true than that liberals wish to hand every person 100,000 per year in free money or that they want all companies taken over by government.  Isn't it time to end the gross exaggerations?

                    Tariffs and punitive actions against other countries are most likely to be a losing proposition because, like it or not, we are a global economy and that other country will return the favor with interest.  We've seen it before, you know.

                    Maybe tax any income from another country at a flat 50% (or will that drive business completely out)?  Or limit the amount that could be imported to 1/10 of what is sold (you'd have problems with such things as lithium that we don't have)?  Is there nothing but actions inviting reprisal from friend and foe alike?

              2. Richard-Bivins profile image88
                Richard-Bivinsposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Donald Trump is the first major political figure who is not only capable of moving the national dialogue rightward, he’s better at manipulating political opinion than the leftists he opposes. Trump’s ability to control the public dialogue is why he’s so feared by the left and the establishment Right.
                The leftward drift of the West is the result of deliberate social engineering designed to undermine America and destroy it from within. From the schools to social media to the boob tube, the left has worked tirelessly to subvert traditional America and indoctrinate successive generations.
                Social engineering has been going on too long and we as well as our millennials are not only victims but also willing participants.  For decades we have been force fed the leftist agenda and anyone not on board is demonized and labeled a "homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot, mysogynist, racist," take your pick.
                Like him or hate him, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is the closest America has come to redemption, the last triumph of nationalism before the left swamps us with hordes of barely literate foreigners who will vote them into a permanent majority.
                The language Trump uses isn't necessarily the language I would use but the message is clear.  He's not a true Republican nor is he a true Democrat, he's a different bird all together and IMO is exactly what this country needs because as the old saying goes, "the left wing and the right wing belong to the same bird."

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Interesting analysis, but I can certainly see where your sentiments lie. The Right blames 'barely literate foreigners', when simply demographics and birth rates among citizens of different ethnic groups will ultimately be the real determinant. How does the "Right" outside of Voter suppression hope to control that?

                  Let's see how well Donald does with the general electorate next fall, assuming that he is the nominee of the GOP.

                  Your idea of 'traditional America' are many of the things that needed to be changed, IMO. Are you content with this country as it was 70 years ago, say?
                  Those 'good ole days' for a lot of the rightwing folks was not always the case for us all.

                  Your observation are your own and are subjective. Many of us have a different point of view. My man, Sanders, taps into another vein, lets see who will prevail?

                  1. Richard-Bivins profile image88
                    Richard-Bivinsposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    No, I’m not content with the way things were 70 years ago in this country.  Many things did need to change and still do but we need to find a way that is inclusive for all legal Americans and in a way that will not contribute to the collapse of our capitalist society. 

                    You’re right, these are just my observations, but also the observations of millions of Trump supporters, and we prefer the calls to Nationalism instead of the calls to socialism or worse.  Interesting, though that you step over my observations with a veiled attempt to demonize me for my stance on illegal immigration and shadowed claim of bigotry… the exact tools of the leftist.

                    It’s okay though, I haven’t walked in your shoes or you in my own. In my days in the Army we were only taught to see green but short of turning into a totalitarian regime like the Soviets or Nazis, I don’t see the US suddenly going color blind or all Kumbaya around Sanders.  But wouldn’t it be interesting to see how the Iranians, Palestinians, and every other ethnic group that wants nothing less than the annihilation of all Jews, if Sanders wins.

                    I have no ill feelings towards Sanders and I believe he loves this country but the way he has moved the millennials and only 3 current US Representatives and not a single current US Senator only demonstrates my point of social engineering.  To me that speaks volumes about what he could get accomplished.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image79
                  Ken Burgessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Pretty close to the mark with this reply... you could replace Socialism with Corporate control of which socialism is a byproduct, as the jobs flow from our nation, the populace is appeased by a Welfare system that supports them.

                  So even though we have TRIPLED those dependent on some form of Welfare to survive since Obama came to office, people accept it because there is some form of support available to them... at some point all the jobs will have been transported to Mexico, China, etc.  and the wealth of the nation will have been drained out, or bought up, and globalization will have balanced the powers and America will be just one of the many struggling nations trying to get by... like France or Greece today.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image79
              Ken Burgessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Trump will delegate 90% of the work to others, that's what a good CEO does, that's what a good business man does.  He finds the right people and says... this is what I want done, now go find a way to do it.
              Trump might very well get along with both sides, and UNLIKE Obama he most likely will be willing to negotiate to get things done.
              He won't be interested in playing politics to make one party look good, or bad, he'll be looking to make himself look good, and get the best out of deals for the country.  That is why he could likely be far better than a Pres like Clinton who is bound to a Party line and beholden to Lobbyists and Special interests.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I tend to agree, but question whether anything at all will get done.  That every politician in congress will simply shut him down regardless of the proposal because he isn't "one of them" and doesn't play the game right (he won't go along with their power plays or their ploys to enrich their friends).  I think Trump will negotiate, but his level of tolerance is going to be far below what the "normal" politician on the hill will do to get what they want.

                I'd like to see his take on such things as term limits, congressional pay and the line item veto.  An honest take, not something to maintain some semblance of cooperation with powerful politicians.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image79
                  Ken Burgessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  I don't think his 'tolerance level' would be a problem, first there has never been anyone more intractable than Obama, but I believe one of Trump's characteristics is to let others do the bulk of the work for him.
                  Which means he will get others to negotiate the deals with Congress. 
                  IF the Senate were unwilling to work with him because they are that beholden to the Lobbyists and Corporate backing, then it wouldn't matter who is elected, nothing will ever change until the country is so far gone that revolt and revolution are guaranteed.
                  If an outsider like Trump can't alter our course and undo the gridlock in Washington, no one running in this election can.  That is truly the bottom line, Trump MAY mean change... anyone else means same-old same-old.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Just one problem: Congress is even more beholden to their Party than to business or lobbyists.   Take the party support from them and none will have a job come election time.  Whereupon it most definitely matters if just the corporate backing is taken away as the party is still alive and kicking strongly.

                    But I do agree that anyone but Trump means just more the same thing we're all tired of.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I have this feeling that if Trump were to become President, he would support investing in infrastructure to bolster the economy and improve the government, much like a CEO would invest in maintaining and improving their corporation's assets to keep the business percolating.

          3. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Greetings Credence2,

            Seriously speaking, wouldn't you have to consider that Sanders' solutions go well past a "Progressive" label and into a "Socialist" redistribution agenda?

            Do you support an additional payroll tax to fund government-paid 12-week family/medical leave?

            Have you looked into the details of Sanders' platform issues and solutions?

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

              GA, that thing with the cow, yeah...

              My father use to tell me that it is better to shoot for the moon and hit an eagle than shoot for the eagle and hit a rock.

              I don't expect all of the things that he proposes to actually see the light of day, but he is moving in the correct direction rather than clearly in the wrong one.

              I have trouble with the 10 days paid vacation, per year. While, I have less trouble with the 7 days paid sick leave.

              Sanders has got a great site and no one can say that he is a man without answers to the questions of the day.

              I would say that Sanders is trying to preserve capitalism and keep it responsible and viable than any attempt to turn America into a Scandinavia, which is highly unlikely.

              Without seeing all the details out front, Sanders is the only candidate with a good progressive tradition and I will take my chances with him over any GOP that is moving backwards.

        2. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I place more importance on economic policies. I think foreign policy decisions only require an America-positive end-goal, a presidential vision. There are plenty of diplomats and advisers to handle the intricacies. I would offer the Nixon/Kissinger team as an example of this.

          Back to Bernie's economic policies, have you looked into the details of those - beyond the campaign sound-bites? I hadn't, until recently, and I was surprised by the divisiveness of the us against the rich tone of his solutions.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Hi GA, can you give an example of what you consider a tone of divisiveness, because I don't see it that way?

            Yes, I have looked into his policies, but I am not an economic policy wonk and would never claim to fully understand the intricacies of how he could achieve his goals.  However, we now have many years of "trickle down" economics and we know that giving tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations has not helped the middle class.  We also know that a huge portion of the growth in wealth of the 1% has nothing to to with producing anything of value.

            In addition, we also know that our country was thriving during a time when tax rates were much higher, even higher than those proposed by Sanders, so the argument that raising taxes will ruin our economy is not borne out by prior evidence.

            Also, I worked for 15 years as a transportation planner, and I can tell you that our transportation infrastructure is in scary bad condition, as is our electrical grid.  I like that Sanders wants to pour funds into building up our infrastructure, which would create good, middle class jobs and stimulate the economy, as well as bring us up to the standards of other civilized countries.  We have fallen embarrassingly behind in so many areas.

            Lastly, most of us agree we need a shakeup in government, which is why Trump and Sanders are currently doing so well.  They are opposite sides of the same coin.  While I don't know if Sanders would be able to achieve his goals, at least he has the right goals, and is changing the conversation, and he's doing it with money from US, the middle class, not with money from the rich and powerful.  That, to me, is YUGE. 

            By the way, I like your take on foreign policy experience.  I agree 100%.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image79
      Ken Burgessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      American voters that are fed up with the lies, with the bought and paid for by lobbyist and special interest politicians that they wheel out... who so nicely spout a bunch of PC rhetoric and promise to fix everything for everyone.

      The majority of Americans are saying... we'll take a Socialist in his 70s or a Bombastic Billionare who bluntly tells you what he thinks, over a prettily packaged 'establishment' politician like Bush or Clinton.

      Americans are TIRED of 30 years of Clinton, Bush, Obama talk the talk, and then walk all over Americans and America... selling us out to China, and with NAFTA, and in Wars that they don't fight to win, but drag on endlessly and then don't take care of our Veterans.

      We are TIRED of lying Politicians and if given ANY alternative... be it Trump or Sanders, America will take it... no matter how much the media screams that they can't win, that they won't win... we know the media is nothing more than a mouthpiece for 'establishment' and we are as tired of the media as we are the Polticians they support.

      There is a chance that Hillary still pulls out a win over Trump in this election, but if she does, she won't change anything, she will continue Obama's march towards globalization and the redistribution of our industrial jobs to overseas countries... and this in turn will lead to a further downturn in our economy (that never really recovered from 07-08) especially if China stops lending Trillions to cover Washington's budgets... and that will lead to a political backlash that made the 2010 Tea Party movement look like a minor incident come 2020.

 
working