2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[archibaldcrane]

Dude

Hillary isn't going to be an advocate for shit she can't see any chance of implementing.

Being disappointed that she isn't pushing for universal basic income is...frustrating.

Stop being mad at Hillary for not being an underpants gnome.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, if you have any link demonstrating that her plan would increase the expected contribution from middle class families, post it. I'd be curious to read details that specific.

[Quicklet]

I'm not holding the universal basic income thing against Hillary. I was just using it as an example that she's taking the bare minimum safe position on an issue that demands so much more.

I'm going off the wording in https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/ and the associated links.

The increased family contribution thing is based off of reading between the lines. The cost-cutting stuff is unrealistic, so college costs are going to keep going up. If your goal is "debt-free college tuition for students" then you're just shifting the problem to the living expenses side and/or asking for a bigger family contribution to achieve that "debt-free" part. A big component of her plan is heavily dependent on states and universities cooperating. You could have the best plan in the world but if it's dependent on states cooperating you're automatically going to have half the states refuse to work with the federal government even if it goes against their interests. Do you think that Walker, Brownback, or Bevin would opt in to this? Even some blue states are cutting back on funding to their universities right now to plug state budget gaps. On top of that, when you have such a complicated plan it makes it a lot easier for the student loan lobby to get carve-outs to make sure they still make money off of this somehow.

I'm not claiming this will do nothing, but for the amount it's going to cost the federal government it's not going to do enough. You're better off just going for a full tuition-free plan instead of going halfway and leaving a lot of people still feeling like they're being screwed by education costs.

[Quicklet]

By the way, the fact that one of Hillary's Super PACs is dropping $1mil into internet astroturfing and using an FEC loophole to coordinate directly with her campaign is the kind of sleazy politics that turns a lot of people off of her. How are people supposed to take her seriously on Citizens United when her own campaign pushes the boundaries of what's acceptable in order to win?

All I'm saying is, don't expect much out of a Hillary administration or you're going to be disappointed.

[archibaldcrane]

Citizens United will only be overturned by the Supreme Court. If you care about it, you need one more liberal justice.

If you want to argue that she won't nominate a liberal justice, uh, do that. Otherwise, the idea that she "shouldn't be taken seriously on overturning Citizen's United" simply exposes your ignorance.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I'm not holding the universal basic income thing against Hillary. I was just using it as an example that she's taking the bare minimum safe position on an issue that demands so much more.

She's not. She's taking the absolutely maximum safe position. The bare minimum safe position is to change nothing, or even to regress government funding. Democrats aren't the majority of the nation, and far liberal Democrats even more so. Not that Republicans are the majority (they aren't), but you seriously need to reorient your understanding of where you lie compared to the general electorate if you think Hillary's plan isn't pushing some boundaries for a *LOT* of people.

[Quicklet]

She's not. She's taking the absolutely maximum safe position. The bare minimum safe position is to change nothing, or even to regress government funding. Democrats aren't the majority of the nation, and far liberal Democrats even more so. Not that Republicans are the majority (they aren't), but you seriously need to reorient your understanding of where you lie compared to the general electorate if you think Hillary's plan isn't pushing some boundaries for a *LOT* of people.

Sorry but I don't factor in the considerations of the brainwashed into my thought process. Ask Kansas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin how their "safe positions" worked out for them.

I can't help that the conservative movement has become increasingly detached from reality over the past few decades.

[archibaldcrane]

Nah Maroot, 350 billion in additional federal spending is the bare minimum, I mean she might as well run as a Republican.

[archibaldcrane]

Louisiana, the state that just expanded Medicaid despite being the reddest state in the union? If that is safe, sign me up.

[Marootsoobutsu]

Nah Maroot, 350 billion in additional federal spending is the bare minimum, I mean she might as well run as a Republican.

I have to say, the Republican Propaganda Machine has done an astonishingly good job of demonizing Hillary, if not-insignificant portions of this forum are any indication. I get your sarcasm, but man. There are so many people for whom I think this is an actual perspective. Talk about brainwashed.

[archibaldcrane]

The idea that 350M is the bare minimum is not the result of the Republican propaganda machine.

It's the result of the king of the underpants gnomes.

[Marootsoobutsu]

The idea that 350M is the bare minimum is not the result of the Republican propaganda machine.

It's the result of the king of the underpants gnomes.

Are you suggesting that Karl Rove isn't the king of the underpants gnomes?

[Minions]

Sanders: Democratic Party hasn't been fair to me

'We knew we were taking on the establishment,' the Vermont senator says.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...airness-222355

"So it sounds like the party, though, you feel like's been fair to you?" Todd asked Sanders.

"No," Sanders responded. "I think we have— look, we're taking on the establishment. That's pretty clear."

Pointing to the Democratic debate schedule, of which three of the first four took place on weekend nights, Sanders said they were "scheduled — pretty clearly, to my mind, at a time when there would be minimal viewing audience— et cetera, et cetera."

"But you know, that's the way it is. We knew we were taking on the establishment," he said. "And here we are. So [I'm] not complaining."

Todd then asked Sanders if he felt he was "given a fair shot" at the Democratic nomination.

"Yeah, we took advantage of the opportunities in front of us. We are in this race. We are not writing our obituary," Sanders said. "We're in this race to California, and we're proud of the campaign we ran."

He won't drop out, and may not ask his followers to unify behind Clinton

While acknowledging that his path to victory is "narrow," Sanders said he could do "very well in California," pointing to a Fox News poll showing him down there by just two percentage points. He also talked up polls showing him faring better than Clinton against Donald Trump in a hypothetical general-election matchup.

And if he is not the Democratic nominee, Sanders suggested that he would not necessarily push his supporters to back Clinton.

"I will do everything that I can to make certain that Donald Trump is not elected president," he told Todd. "But if that scenario plays out, the major responsibility will be on Secretary Clinton to convince all people, not just supporters, that she is the kind of president this country needs to represent working people in this country, to take on the big money interests who have so much power, to fight for what the American people want."

If Trump is out to potentially destroy the DNC, Sanders seems out to do the same to the Democrats. Guess his true nature begins to become more public.

[notorious bum]

I'm not holding the universal basic income thing against Hillary. I was just using it as an example that she's taking the bare minimum safe position on an issue that demands so much more.

I'm going off the wording in https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/ and the associated links.

The increased family contribution thing is based off of reading between the lines. The cost-cutting stuff is unrealistic, so college costs are going to keep going up. If your goal is "debt-free college tuition for students" then you're just shifting the problem to the living expenses side and/or asking for a bigger family contribution to achieve that "debt-free" part. A big component of her plan is heavily dependent on states and universities cooperating. You could have the best plan in the world but if it's dependent on states cooperating you're automatically going to have half the states refuse to work with the federal government even if it goes against their interests. Do you think that Walker, Brownback, or Bevin would opt in to this? Even some blue states are cutting back on funding to their universities right now to plug state budget gaps. On top of that, when you have such a complicated plan it makes it a lot easier for the student loan lobby to get carve-outs to make sure they still make money off of this somehow.

I'm not claiming this will do nothing, but for the amount it's going to cost the federal government it's not going to do enough. You're better off just going for a full tuition-free plan instead of going halfway and leaving a lot of people still feeling like they're being screwed by education costs.

Don't stress about this "student bubble" my friend. It will incrementally disappear and our great nation will avoid repeating history. Plus, I think you're missing the part where education is a commodity and no one gives a fuck about your concerns about keeping a system of profit and exploitation in-place.

[Gredival]

I looked at her college plan a few months ago, and I was unimpressed. FAFSA already requires middle-class families to contribute more than is realistic, and she wants to increase that amount? All you'd be doing is shifting the loan burden from the student to the family which seems like economic recklessness to me. At least with students the economic impact of the student loan bubble is more indirect since it's more about delayed life choices and less about foreclosures. I also don't see increased work-study realistically covering the gap between cost of school and what students/families can afford now. It just doesn't strike me as a credible way to address the overall problem, and I could see it making it worse for some families.

Supporting a $12 minimum wage is easy. Supporting a $15 minimum wage would be even better. Neither addresses the structural economic problems we face but it's the bare minimum we should be expecting. I'd love to see a president pave the way for basic living income so we're not caught off-guard when all our low-skill jobs are automated/shipped away and we have structural mass unemployment because education for the high-skill jobs that remain is too expensive for most people.

I want someone with the vision and courage to tackle the big problems of the 21st century, not someone who's going to do the bare minimum on some things and be a setback on others. And I understand that some of these things are not feasible in 2016, or by 2020, or even by 2030, but we need to start working on them and we need to start having the conversations that make these things possible. If the best we can do is the bare minimum, we are totally fucked.

The problem with education is that NO ONE will ever have the courage to lead the fight for real change (especially not Bernie) because it starts with arguing that the solution to Bachelor's degrees being the new HS diploma is NOT to make it accessible to everyone but to cut supply. Accreditation should be harder. For-profit schools should be shuttered. More schools need to be need-blind like the elite schools so that students without academic potential only their worthless lamb skins aid if their families are willing to waste money on a sticker price diploma as an overpriced privilege for them; otherwise they should be sorted into trade schools.

But no one in their right mind will campaign on that. The idea that everyone, even your special snowflake children that struggle to maintain a 3.0 in our joke of a HS system, should get an education because they want it sells so much better.

[Salodin]

Sanders: Democratic Party hasn't been fair to me

'We knew we were taking on the establishment,' the Vermont senator says.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...airness-222355



He won't drop out, and may not ask his followers to unify behind Clinton



If Trump is out to potentially destroy the DNC, Sanders seems out to do the same to the Democrats. Guess his true nature begins to become more public.

Thats what you took from that? I saw the interview this morning, and if anything he's saying that it's up to Clinton to earn the votes that Bernie himself earned by appealing to the desires of his supporters. He isn't going to just hand wave them over to her because she lost, she has to earn them like he did. I think that's fair, don't you?

[archibaldcrane]

Supporting a $12 minimum wage is easy.

So easy that Obama has never pushed for more than $10.10

and he couldn't even get close to passing that

[Quicklet]

Nah Maroot, 350 billion in additional federal spending is the bare minimum, I mean she might as well run as a Republican.

You're ignoring my point. The dollar amount isn't the primary measure. If it doesn't adequately address the problem it's just going to be looked at as either wasteful spending or not good enough. The ACA isn't going to fix long-term health care costs, so when insurance rates keep going up it makes it easier to attack the program as ineffective/unsuccessful regardless of the merits.

Louisiana, the state that just expanded Medicaid despite being the reddest state in the union? If that is safe, sign me up.

Yes, after electing a Democratic governor because Jindal ran their state into the ground and the Republican who wanted to replace him had a major cheating scandal hanging around his neck. Just because they finally got the Medicaid expansion doesn't eliminate the massive budget issues they're facing because of poor Republican fiscal governance.

The problem with education is that NO ONE will ever have the courage to lead the fight for real change (especially not Bernie) because it starts with arguing that the solution to Bachelor's degrees being the new HS diploma is NOT to make it accessible to everyone but to cut supply. Accreditation should be harder. For-profit schools should be shuttered. More schools need to be need-blind like the elite schools so that students without academic potential only their worthless lamb skins aid if their families are willing to waste money on a sticker price diploma as an overpriced privilege for them; otherwise they should be sorted into trade schools.

But no one in their right mind will campaign on that. The idea that everyone, even your special snowflake children that struggle to maintain a 3.0 in our joke of a HS system, should get an education because they want it sells so much better.

Not sure I fully agree but I'll take your point that college is oversold right now and making it tuition-free is just a bandaid to a bigger problem.

[Salodin]

Idk, removing the cost as a barrier of entry will just force schools to be more selective in who they accept. Judging by some of the shenanigans I saw as a lab assistant this semester, that's only a good thing.

[Minions]

Thats what you took from that? I saw the interview this morning, and if anything he's saying that it's up to Clinton to earn the votes that Bernie himself earned by appealing to the desires of his supporters. He isn't going to just hand wave them over to her because she lost, she has to earn them like he did. I think that's fair, don't you?

Reading into what he has said, and his campaign manager, they seem to be running an increasingly more hostile campaign. Saying shit along the lines of, even if we can't win will contest the convention anyway etc. Sanders publicly saying he may not back Clinton, which would lead to a fragmented Democratic base, one that Trump or Cruz can/could handily win over if that is the case.

His threats are coming off as whining in many cases. Why should dates he want be the debate schedule? In most elections both parties have to agree on dates. Shit is getting old fast. There is no doubt in my mind the RNC will win if both bases are fragmented. Trump has a large enough following to ensure that.