US Politics - Why we can't have even mediocre things

[Hayyoth]

 

Yes, but in this case their concerns are xenophobia.

 

Cause that's Trumps main and really only platform plank. It's literally his only position on his website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

Yep true enough. Strange though how Trump's position on the border is nearly identical to Sanders and yet one's a xenophobic racist and the other isn't so much. I'd also note that Trump lists as one of his objectives prioritizing inner city youth for employment and education over immigrants, this stuff isn't as simple as it would appear to an outsider.

[IamMe90]

Yep true enough. Strange though how Trump's position on the border is nearly identical to Sanders and yet one's a xenophobic racist and the other isn't so much. I'd also note that Trump lists as one of his objectives prioritizing inner city youth for employment and education over immigrants, this stuff isn't as simple as it would appear to an outsider.

 

That's because Trumps' campaign speeches involve the use of volatile, offensive rhetoric, for instance, blanket statements about undocumented Mexican immigrants being rapists, and Sanders' don't. Not strange at all, really.

[ThinkerX]

fix is in with DWS limiting Clinton's exposure in primary debates

And Trump was a buffoon who wasn't even supposed to make it to the debates.

Again, the party elite is juggling dynamite. They get too heavy handed, it'll blow up in their faces.

[Shryke]

Looks like Walker's campaign is falling apart too:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/us/scott-walker-cancels-events-to-focus-on-iowa-and-south-carolina.html?referrer=&_r=0

 

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is refocusing his Republican presidential campaign on Iowa and South Carolina, where his early popularity in opinion polls has crumbled with the ascent of Donald J. Trump, and he has taken the unusual step of canceling major speeches in Michigan and California this coming week to spend time in those two crucial states.

 

Mr. Walker, who has fallen in one key Iowa poll from first place in July to 10th place this month, no longer plans to appear next weekend at a prestigious Republican conference on Mackinac Island in Michigan or at the California Republican Party convention. Instead, his advisers said, he plans to campaign in Iowa — where he is holding events this weekend as well — and in South Carolina.

 

Mr. Walker’s advisers said the last-minute cancellations were not a sign of panic about the viability of his presidential bid but rather a recognition that at this point his time and campaign funds are better spent on Iowa and South Carolina. Mr. Walker regards Iowa, which will hold the nation’s first presidential nominating contest on Feb. 1, as virtually a must-win state that would energize his supporters and donors nationwide. And he has long seen South Carolina, which votes later that month, as another winnable early state that could give him momentum and stature in a large field of Republican candidates.

 

 

 

He is despserate. He was supposed to be the more hardcore conservative alternative to Bush but the real crazies have eaten his lunch.

[Mexal]

 

Just to vent a bit, but I've always been confused why the super-rich care so much about losing out on even a bit of money. If someone goes from being worth two-billion to one-billion they still have more money than any human being could possibly spend in ten consecutive lifetimes. So what if you'll be paying 50% marginal tax instead of 45%? This won't actually effect the quality of your existence in any measurable way. Is money just a videogame to them? Do they get their jollies from watching the number on the screen go up?

 

I understand why the sort-of rich might worry about more redistributive policies. I think those policies are still a good thing, but I can at least understand why affluent-but-not-obscenely-wealthy individuals might be wary of them; their lifestyles might take an actual hit. But short of an actual armed uprising, the sort of person who can afford two super-yachts is never going to be living in anything other than total opulence for the rest of their lives, so why do they care so much about slightly higher taxes and other social democratic policies?

 

I was having this conversation last night with my GF's mom who works for a billionaire real estate family. What we decided is that generational wealth tends to limit the wealth of all involved. As generations get rich, they have more and more people they have to support, cousins, nephews, grandkids and so on and those people become very used to a certain life style (20m apartments, private planes so the baby can sleep, insane vacations or expensive meals/drinks/clothes). To ensure that every family member continues to enjoy that life style, without actually working for it, they tend to need to keep growing. I get your point and generally agree, but as families grow, the piece of the pie for each person shrinks and you need to continue to grow in order to keep that slice in a range they're used to.

 

Plus, no one likes giving up money they believe they've earned to people they feel haven't. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Yep true enough. Strange though how Trump's position on the border is nearly identical to Sanders and yet one's a xenophobic racist and the other isn't so much. I'd also note that Trump lists as one of his objectives prioritizing inner city youth for employment and education over immigrants, this stuff isn't as simple as it would appear to an outsider.

 

On a slightly related note, I'm tired of people comparing Trump with Sanders. Trump is vile, venal arrogant, racist, misogynist, probably rapist, asshole with a silver spoon stuck up his ass and who's investments couldn't even beat the S&P. He's an uglier, fatter, douchier version of Russ Hanneman. I don't know why he's running for President. Maybe he's trolling, maybe he's hoping to extract some permanent favors, maybe he has no idea what he's doing, or maybe he's actually sincere about his vile and idiotic campaign platform.

 

Bernie Sanders is lifelong public servant whom I believe genuinely wants to help his country and his fellow man as much as he can. I also think he's wrong about economics and immigration, but he's coming from a good place.

[Fragile Bird]

Just to vent a bit, but I've always been confused why the super-rich care so much about losing out on even a bit of money. If someone goes from being worth two-billion to one-billion they still have more money than any human being could possibly spend in ten consecutive lifetimes. So what if you'll be paying 50% marginal tax instead of 45%? This won't actually effect the quality of your existence in any measurable way. Is money just a videogame to them? Do they get their jollies from watching the number on the screen go up?
 
I understand why the sort-of rich might worry about more redistributive policies. I think those policies are still a good thing, but I can at least understand why affluent-but-not-obscenely-wealthy individuals might be wary of them; their lifestyles might take an actual hit. But short of an actual armed uprising, the sort of person who can afford two super-yachts is never going to be living in anything other than total opulence for the rest of their lives, so why do they care so much about slightly higher taxes and other social democratic policies?

No person in the US with more than a billion dollars pays tax at the rate of 45%, let alone 50%. There are so many ways to shelter wealth from taxation that it's impossible to get their tax rates up so high. I mean, that's why the financial services industry has so many very, very, very rich advisors. Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the USA has repeatedly said he pays less income tax than his secretary. That doesn't mean he wants to voluntarily pay more in income tax, which he could easily do by re-arranging some of his investments. He believes he can make more money by keeping as much as possible, and instead of giving governments his money he's donating the money to charity.

[Hayyoth]

 

On a slightly related note, I'm tired of people comparing Trump with Sanders. Trump is vile, venal arrogant, racist, misogynist, probably rapist, asshole with a silver spoon stuck up his ass and who's investments couldn't even beat the S&P. He's an uglier, fatter, douchier version of Russ Hanneman. I don't know why he's running for President. Maybe he's trolling, maybe he's hoping to extract some permanent favors, maybe he has no idea what he's doing, or maybe he's actually sincere about his vile and idiotic campaign platform.

 

Bernie Sanders is lifelong public servant whom I believe genuinely wants to help his country and his fellow man as much as he can. I also think he's wrong about economics and immigration, but he's coming from a good place.

Um wtf? Do you want to elaborate on that.

 

Anyway I agree Sanders is probably a nicer person but there's also the fact he's an economic idiot. Someone who genuinely thinks that the nations troubles stem from there being too many brands of deodorant on sale at Walmart needs to be let nowhere near high public office. Senator for Vermont is the limit for this dude, he can build air castles and spout nonsense all day long without hurting anyone, but President?

[Lord Mord]

Hayyoth,

 

Um wtf? Do you want to elaborate on that.

 

Anyway I agree Sanders is probably a nicer person but there's also the fact he's an economic idiot. Someone who genuinely thinks that the nations troubles stem from there being too many brands of deodorant on sale at Walmart needs to be let nowhere near high public office. Senator for Vermont is the limit for this dude, he can build air castles and spout nonsense all day long without hurting anyone, but President?

 

 

I don't get that read from his statement at all.  I could call it inarftul, perhaps, but the fact is you've completely dismissed the entire lead-off on those remarks: "You can't just continue growth for the sake of growth [...]".  Using that as a context to frame everything that comes after, he's hardly against having any number of deodorants or sneakers.  What he's doing is rebuffing the conservative notion that unrestricted growth is in itself a good thing, come what may.  He's not knocking growth, but he's saying that a focus on growth alone is a race to the environmental and social bottom.

 

The references to deodorants and shoes are a matter of challenging conservatives to drop the false dichotomy, or else justify choosing the wrong end of it.  "If doing better environmentally and for the least fortunate means we have a smaller economy and lose some brands, is that so terrible a price to pay?"

 

I suppose YMMV, but I just don't see how you get to your reading at all.

[polishgenius]

but the fact is you've completely dismissed the entire lead-off on those remarks:

 

 

He was just employing a little rhetorical flourish.

[BloodRider]

 

If LA had clean air and less horrific traffic, it would be a really amazing place.  Let's see how this goes. 

And more water

[Ser Reptitious]

I was having this conversation last night with my GF's mom who works for a billionaire real estate family. What we decided is that generational wealth tends to limit the wealth of all involved. As generations get rich, they have more and more people they have to support, cousins, nephews, grandkids and so on and those people become very used to a certain life style (20m apartments, private planes so the baby can sleep, insane vacations or expensive meals/drinks/clothes). To ensure that every family member continues to enjoy that life style, without actually working for it, they tend to need to keep growing. I get your point and generally agree, but as families grow, the piece of the pie for each person shrinks and you need to continue to grow in order to keep that slice in a range they're used to.
 
Plus, no one likes giving up money they believe they've earned to people they feel haven't.

Such as the aforementioned cousins, nephews, grandkids, etc.?  ;)

[maarsen]

Such as the aforementioned cousins, nephews, grandkids, etc.?  ;)

If you wait long enough, succeeding generations do tend to blow it all and end up as poor as the rest of us. Estate taxes are a good thing for a society as it speeds up the natural process.

[Mexal]

Such as the aforementioned cousins, nephews, grandkids, etc.?  ;)

 

Hah, it's kind of ridiculous. 

[Commodore]

Sanders is nice enough, but he wants to take my money and control my behavior (for the benefit of society of course).

Trump is more (but not much more) likely to leave me alone.

[Fez]

fix is in with DWS limiting Clinton's exposure in primary debates

 

That was the goal anyway. At this point though, I think Clinton would want more debates. She badly needs a way to get a spark again and change the momentum, which is all headed towards Sanders. 

[BloodRider]

I still say that, until Sanders wins primaries in the South, he has not proven he can win the primary.  Period - Full stop.  Dance around the numbers all you want, but He's got to show that he can carry the black and hispanic vote.

 

So get back to me when he wins GA, FL, TX, or somesuch.  Although CA is a fair substitute.

[Altherion]

A lot of people still don't know much about Sanders. Take a look at this Huffington Post article: in national polls, 38% still don't know enough about him to rate him. In the states where he has campaigned, that percentage drops to 15% or less and the percentage that would vote for him rises to more than 40%. Thus, I suspect he still has room to grow both in South and in the West.

[Mudguard]

Why can't Sanders do well with Blacks and Hispanics?  He has a long record as a civil rights advocate, and his policies tend to be favorable to Blacks and Hispanics.  

 

I agree with Altherion; his biggest problem right now is lack of name recognition with minorities (and probably many Whites as well).  They don't really know who he is and what he stands for.  But this is something he can change over the next 5-6 months.

 

If his numbers with minorities don't improve after the first couple debates and after spending a lot more time campaigning in the South, then I'll write off his chances.  But I think there's a good chance that his numbers with minorities will improve significantly over the next several months.

[Shryke]

Why can't Sanders do well with Blacks and Hispanics?  He has a long record as a civil rights advocate, and his policies tend to be favorable to Blacks and Hispanics.  

 

I agree with Altherion; his biggest problem right now is lack of name recognition with minorities (and probably many Whites as well).  They don't really know who he is and what he stands for.  But this is something he can change over the next 5-6 months.

 

If his numbers with minorities don't improve after the first couple debates and after spending a lot more time campaigning in the South, then I'll write off his chances.  But I think there's a good chance that his numbers with minorities will improve significantly over the next several months.

 

His numbers with minorities still haven't improved despite recent attempts and at least one endorsement.

 

And the people who still don't know with him aren't small, but aren't large compared to those that see him favourable/unfavourable already.