View Full Version : Disappointed in the Democratic field of presidential candidates
Disappointed is too light of a word. I am flabbergasted at the weakness of the Democratic field. Whoever is in charge of developing the pipeline of potential national candidates for the Democratic party has done a terrible job. Apart from Hillary Clinton, you've got Martin O'Malley as the only viable candidate. And Hillary Clinton is a moderately weak candidate at best, and O'Malley is an unknown quantity, but clearly not a world beater. And now there is talk about Joe Biden coming and rescuing us - Are you f'n kidding me?
Say what you want about the Republicans, but they have a great field of candidates. It is unlikely I would vote for one of them, but they have a much much stronger field. What do you think?
gimmethesimplelife
8-9-15, 11:41pm
As one of the liberals here, I have to say that I am partial to Hillary and I like some of what Bernie Sanders has had to say. The only candidate on the other team that has impressed me to date is Carly Fiorina - She comes across to me as well prepared and as confident and having her act together. I don't know that she is going to be able to advance to the big leagues here in the debates but I have read online about the possibility of her being chosen as a VP on a Republican ticket and I for one believe this would be a brilliant choice on the part of the GOP. Maybe Kasich/Fiorina or Rubio/Fiorina - I could see these two tickets giving Hillary a run for her money.....
For those who don't like Hillary, I'm of the opinion that Donald Trump is not your friend. If he does run independently supposedly this could propel a nominated Hillary to the White House, so I am hearing from pundits, who knows if they are right? My big issue with Mr Trump goes beyond my being liberal and him being conservative - I just can't see even his own party if the gets the GOP nomination working with him.....Can you imagine Congress and it's attitude if he were to dispense his wisdom on a daily basis? I'm thinking Trump is good for one thing - very good for one thing - getting some unpleasant issues on the table where they can't be dodged or swept under the rug as easily and I do respect the man for that even if I dislike him.
And ouch, I've gotten way off topic, I'm sorry. Rob
freshstart
8-10-15, 3:10am
that's funny because I'm having trouble picturing any of the Republican choices as being electable, they seem particularly really bad this go round. But then things have gotten so crazy in our country, there are bazillions who agree with these nut balls and that is truly scary. I am very fearful that separation of Church and State will be gone forever should the GOP win. I can live with Hillary but want Bernie.
The GOP does seem to have the deeper bench this cycle. I'd feel comfortable voting for any of eight or ten of the current contenders. I suspect that's because the GOP has a growing dominance at the State level, which gives them a bigger pipeline of new prospects.
The Democrats seem almost comically weak. An uber-hack so estranged from the truth that even the party faithful are getting uncomfortable, a non-Democrat conducting a sixties nostalgia tour and a few long-shots hoping the leaders implode. Now I hear Joe Biden is pondering another run, possibly dusting of some old Neil Kinnock speeches. I do like Jim Webb, though.
I'm assuming the OP identifies, at least somewhat, as a Republican. Otherwise they are the first Democrat I've run into who has no love for Bernie. So little, in fact, that he wasn't even mentioned in the post, while someone who isn't even running (yet) did get a mention. Despite Bernie being #2 currently.
I do have to agree with LDAHL though. Hillary is about as Uber-hack as one can get. Since I live in a safely blue state I can comfortably skip voting for president this time around if she's the nominee.
I'm not a democrat or republican, but I love, love, LOVE Bernie Sanders! Finally a candidate I can vote *for* rather than holding my nose and voting for the one I think might do the least damage. The republican party has declined so severely since Eisenhower that I'm not sure that I can vote for any of them again unless they really start to improve. This year's batch is the worst yet. Like freshstart, I also fear the demise of separation of church and state (don't like the idea of the so-called Christian version of ISIS in this country) not to mention other aspects of democracy that are already gone or close to gone due to the corporate candidates of both parties.
freshstart
8-10-15, 1:17pm
I do have to agree with LDAHL though. Hillary is about as Uber-hack as one can get. Since I live in a safely blue state I can comfortably skip voting for president this time around if she's the nominee.
I do, as well and I think this time I might feel strongly enough to vote for the long shot. he's got my vote in the primaries
So far I like what Bernie has said more than the rest (in either party), but I really have no idea how he would accomplish all those lofty goals. With all the hope and change that was tossed about in the last couple elections I'm not convinced a platform based on changing *everything* is electable. Its too bad because I think Bernieworld would be a nice place to live, but when momma said "pick your battles" I'm pretty sure she didn't mean all of them. Beyond Bernie, and sticking to the Dem side of the coin, I just can't quite fathom a scenario in which I would conclude that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the job. Other than Mrs. Clinton the scariest part of the past eight years has been Joe Biden being a heartbeat away from the oval office so don't think I'll be voting to hand him the keys. Are there any other Dems running? Even NPR usually stops watching at that point.
At this point, I don't care as much about electability as I do about sending a message--which Bernie is doing quite successfully. I've always been a fan of the Clinton Administration, but I'm now distrustful of the "Clinton machine."
Half seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Clintons who engineered the Bernie Sanders Seattle sabotage.
Since I am open to either party, I was very interested in the GOP debates. I had to agree with:
--Trump on the single-payer system (and erasing the false state boundaries)
--Huckabee? on the simplified tax code (can't remember if it was Huckabee)
--Carson on the irrelevance of color of the skin in real human interactions
Wish I could think of something Christie said that I agreed with because he's my governor, but I don't know..
iris lilies
8-10-15, 7:39pm
At this point, I don't care as much about electability as I do about sending a message--which Bernie is doing quite successfully. I've always been a fan of the Clinton Administration, but I'm now distrustful of the "Clinton machine."
Half seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Clintons who engineered the Bernie Sanders Seattle sabotage.
Since I am open to either party, I was very interested in the GOP debates. I had to agree with:
--Trump on the single-payer system (and erasing the false state boundaries)
--Huckabee? on the simplified tax code (can't remember if it was Huckabee)
--Carson on the irrelevance of color of the skin in real human interactions
Wish I could think of something Christie said that I agreed with because he's my governor, but I don't know..
many wish to simplify the tax code.
huckabee proposes a consumption tax.
carson proposed a 10% "tithing" tax, a flat tax on income
rand Paul proposes a 14.5% flat tax on income but he wasn't called on to talk about it at Thursday's Prop Up Jeb panel event.
many wish to simplify the tax code.
huckabee proposes a consumption tax.
carson proposed a 10% "tithing" tax, a flat tax on income
rand Paul proposes a 14.5% flat tax on income but he wasn't called on to talk about it at Thursday's Prop Up Jeb panel event.
That's right! I liked the consumption tax idea--so it was Huckabee's idea I liked although I didn't get it right. I know the flat tax has been tossed around since Steve Forbes, which I actually think makes sense, but maybe it's just too easy.
ApatheticNoMore
8-10-15, 8:20pm
A tax of course doesn't need to be flat to be easy. I find it hard to believe people who have done taxes think it's the brackets that make it difficult. Because all you do to figure out your tax bracket is look in the tax table. It's not hard. If it was all that taxes involve everyone could do them by hand. It's not tax brackets that make it difficult. It's often deductions, the complexity of investment income being taxed at a different rate etc..
The thing about Bernie Sanders is I'm not sure it's something I have to think that much about. When are California's primaries? Oh tied with a few other states for dead last, next June. Send a messages, but to whom? And is anybody listening?
iris lilies
8-10-15, 9:52pm
A tax of course doesn't need to be flat to be easy. I find it hard to believe people who have done taxes think it's the brackets that make it difficult. Because all you do to figure out your tax bracket is look in the tax table. It's not hard. If it was all that taxes involve everyone could do them by hand. It's not tax brackets that make it difficult. It's often deductions, the complexity of investment income being taxed at a different rate etc....?
You are right. But I'm pretty sure without looking it up that the proponents of flat tax also advocate getting rid of all exemptions, deductions, credits.
its all a pipe dream, won't happen.
The GOP does seem to have the deeper bench this cycle. I'd feel comfortable voting for any of eight or ten of the current contenders. I suspect that's because the GOP has a growing dominance at the State level, which gives them a bigger pipeline of new prospects.
The Democrats seem almost comically weak. An uber-hack so estranged from the truth that even the party faithful are getting uncomfortable, a non-Democrat conducting a sixties nostalgia tour and a few long-shots hoping the leaders implode. Now I hear Joe Biden is pondering another run, possibly dusting of some old Neil Kinnock speeches. I do like Jim Webb, though.
Yeah, general weakness at the state level is probably a part of it. Maybe some potential candidates also decided very early to sit out because they wrongly believed that Hillary was a sure thing, or (perhaps rightly) that the big donors were locked into HC. Whatever the reasons, they wound up with a weak field and could potentially lose the presidency as a result.
I'm assuming the OP identifies, at least somewhat, as a Republican. Otherwise they are the first Democrat I've run into who has no love for Bernie. So little, in fact, that he wasn't even mentioned in the post, while someone who isn't even running (yet) did get a mention. Despite Bernie being #2 currently.
I am actually not sympathetic to the GOP at all. I just don't think Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate. I love him, though. I was a fan long before he was a presidential candidate, or even a senator.
Now Bernie Sanders does become viable if the GOP loses its mind and nominates someone like Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson, or please please please Lord Donald Trump. Then we are in for a wild ride and a good time, not to mention a very consequential election.
A tax of course doesn't need to be flat to be easy. I find it hard to believe people who have done taxes think it's the brackets that make it difficult. Because all you do to figure out your tax bracket is look in the tax table. It's not hard. If it was all that taxes involve everyone could do them by hand. It's not tax brackets that make it difficult. It's often deductions, the complexity of investment income being taxed at a different rate etc..
This is exactly right. Flat tax plans are rusues. Misdirection. The game they are playing is designed to cut taxes for the highest earners by disguising it as tax simplification.
Yeah, general weakness at the state level is probably a part of it. Maybe some potential candidates also decided very early to sit out because they wrongly believed that Hillary was a sure thing, or (perhaps rightly) that the big donors were locked into HC. Whatever the reasons, they wound up with a weak field and could potentially lose the presidency as a result.
That's very true. The Inevitability Myth combined with tightly controlled press exposure seemed to be working for her up until a few months ago. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong for her: probably a combination of factors. Apart from the usual Clinton equivocation on any number of issues and the mendacity of the family foundation, the left wing of the party seems eager to support someone unapologetic about protectionism and redistribution.
This is exactly right. Flat tax plans are rusues. Misdirection. The game they are playing is designed to cut taxes for the highest earners by disguising it as tax simplification.
The one proposal I saw for the flat tax included an elimination of the capitol gains tax. The lower tax rate on capitol gains has long been a tax refuge for the more wealthy and the elimination of the tax altogether could be a further tax refuge. It would be nice to have some tax reform and a flat tax could be a good choice, but the devil may lie in the details.
I'm not inspired by any of the candidates so far, but as the field is thinned out there may be a few standouts. An important issue for me is climate change and all of the Republic candidates are weak or very week on that. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/11/429781692/where-presidential-candidates-stand-on-climate-change
As much as I like Sanders his platform almost seems too idealistic to be achievable, but he probably is borderline as a viable candidate, anyway.
The one proposal I saw for the flat tax included an elimination of the capitol gains tax. The lower tax rate on capitol gains has long been a tax refuge for the more wealthy and the elimination of the tax altogether could be a further tax refuge.
I'd be fine with taxing capital gains the same as any other sort of income, *if* the basis was indexed for inflation over the holding period of the asset before calculating the "gain".
I'm selling an asset next month. I will have a small on-paper capital gain - about 5% of the selling price of the asset. I've held the asset for 15 years. There has been a 37% increase in CPI over that holding period. My "gain" is actually a loss, in real dollars.
I'm selling an asset next month. I will have a small on-paper capital gain - about 5% of the selling price of the asset. I've held the asset for 15 years. There has been a 37% increase in CPI over that holding period. My "gain" is actually a loss, in real dollars.
Similarly, my "safe" savings interest that I am taxed fully as income has been earning less than the inflation rate and is actually a net loss.
The one proposal I saw for the flat tax included an elimination of the capitol gains tax. The lower tax rate on capitol gains has long been a tax refuge for the more wealthy and the elimination of the tax altogether could be a further tax refuge. It would be nice to have some tax reform and a flat tax could be a good choice, but the devil may lie in the details.
I don't think the rank and file folks who support a flat tax are intending for it to be just a big tax cut for the highest earners in the land. But the crafters, and intellectual supporters, know exactly what they are doing. The beginning, middle, and end of the reasons for a Flat Tax are all about cutting taxes for those at the top. It has literally nothing to do with simplification. If it was about simplification, you could simplify but keep a few different brackets. That would broaden support, but be a deal breaker for the crafters and intellectual advocates. The closer you look at it, the more clear the con becomes.
I'd be fine with taxing capital gains the same as any other sort of income, *if* the basis was indexed for inflation over the holding period of the asset before calculating the "gain".
I'm selling an asset next month. I will have a small on-paper capital gain - about 5% of the selling price of the asset. I've held the asset for 15 years. There has been a 37% increase in CPI over that holding period. My "gain" is actually a loss, in real dollars.
This is a legitimate issue. People do indeed pay tax on phantom gains. The partial offset is that capital gains compound and are deferred tax free, similar to a 401K or IRA. If people had to pay annually on unrealized gains, their effective rate would be much higher. There are practical reasons why we don't do this, but it is another factor to consider when looking at the broader picture.
That's right! I liked the consumption tax idea--so it was Huckabee's idea I liked although I didn't get it right. I know the flat tax has been tossed around since Steve Forbes, which I actually think makes sense, but maybe it's just too easy.
A consumption based tax definitely has some merits. The opposition from the left doesn't like how it pushes the tax burden downward from the top. The fear on the right is that we'd end up with both a consumption tax and an income tax. I think they both are right.
As a side note, Mike Huckabee has kept his lovely blurb from 2008 about the "fair tax" making "pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers" pay. it cracks me up every time.
iris lilies
8-12-15, 11:29am
A consumption based tax definitely has some merits. The opposition from the left doesn't like how it pushes the tax burden downward from the top. The fear on the right is that we'd end up with both a consumption tax and an income tax. I think they both are right.
As a side note, Mike Huckabee has kept his lovely blurb from 2008 about the "fair tax" making "pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers" pay. it cracks me up every time.
A real oppositional point from this Righty about consumption tax is that I've already paid income taxes on the money sitting in my bank and have managed to save some from the confiscatory actions of the gubmnt. So now I'm gonna have to pay out YET AGAIN when I take my cash to buy a new car? Hell, no.
But otherwise, I like the idea.
Yossarian
8-23-15, 11:07am
How about a Biden/Warren ticket?
How many rings can a circus have?
How about a Biden/Warren ticket?
Or Warren/Biden. ;)
catherine
8-24-15, 10:56am
A real oppositional point from this Righty about consumption tax is that I've already paid income taxes on the money sitting in my bank and have managed to save some from the confiscatory actions of the gubmnt. So now I'm gonna have to pay out YET AGAIN when I take my cash to buy a new car? Hell, no.
But otherwise, I like the idea.
But wouldn't the consumption tax REPLACE the income tax? I agree that, yes, if tomorrow the Huckabee-Tax was passed (not the same ring as Obamacare), you would have already paid income tax, as would we all have, so not sure how they would handle the transition, but if eventually we could just pay taxes on what we consume, it's an interesting question as to how that would shake up the economy. A real boon for zero-growth and negative-growth fans. Or maybe not--maybe people would save more money, or maybe they would spend more of the money that would have gone to the government off the top of their income.
Interesting.
freshstart
8-24-15, 1:17pm
How about a Biden/Warren ticket?
How many rings can a circus have?
I love her but think we need her where she is right now. If it weren't for that, I'd like a Bernie/Warren ticket, one can dream
iris lilies
8-24-15, 3:23pm
But wouldn't the consumption tax REPLACE the income tax? I agree that, yes, if tomorrow the Huckabee-Tax was passed (not the same ring as Obamacare), you would have already paid income tax, as would we all have, so not sure how they would handle the transition, but if eventually we could just pay taxes on what we consume, it's an interesting question as to how that would shake up the economy. A real boon for zero-growth and negative-growth fans. Or maybe not--maybe people would save more money, or maybe they would spend more of the money that would have gone to the government off the top of their income.
Interesting.
yes, the consumption tax would replace income tax in Mike Huckabee's proposal. While I don't know specifics of his plan, I think it would work in this way for me:
Here I am sitting on my piles of cash that have already been taxed from the prior system of taxes on income. As a simple example, my income was $13,000 and the Feds let me keep $10,000. That pile 'o cash is now 100% mine because the Feds already took their pound of flesh of $3,000 in the old taxation scheme.
But in the new taxation scheme, taxing consumption, any product I buy with cash from an old pile is taxed YET AGAIN under the new system. Under the old system I would have taken out $10,000 from a cash pile to buy a car. Now, under the new system that taxes purchases , I have to take out $13,000. That sucks because the Feds got $3,000 the first time around and under the new scheme they will get another $3,000.
Sure my new income will have no tax, but that doesn't help those of us who actually save money and whose wealth is not determined by an income stream when this new scheme goes into effect. And for my specific situation, a new low income due to retirement, now I can't even benefit from low income tax bracket.
What effect this kind of taxation has in the larger world is very difficult to predict. It won't happen, anyway.
just like my preferred flat tax scheme won't happen, anyway.
How about a Biden/Warren ticket?
How many rings can a circus have?
If Biden could manage to behave himself (eg. not try to awkwardly kiss anyone's daughter, etc..) this is merely a moderately weak ticket, but a very beatable one.
The other side, despite a wider selection, has the potential to field some doozies. I have been operating under the assumption, perhaps naively, that the Republicans have a two man race between Bush and Walker. Despite quadra-annual rumblings from the unwashed, the Republicans tend to fall in line when it comes to nominees. But is "this time is different" finally true? Can the toothless masses outmuscle the elite dentists, if I can coin a phrase?
How do you think this will play out? Despite you playing the role of token "conservative" on these boards, you have struck me as a relatively non-crazy Republican. WTF is happening on your side? Or anyone?
I think in the end it will come down to Rubio, Walker or Bush against whichever old white person the party of diversity ultimately fields.
Trump is all good fun, but his positions on trade, immigration and health care are so indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders' that it's hard to see him surviving the primaries.
iris lilies
8-26-15, 11:07am
Bernie and The Donald share the same vision on Immigration? U serious, Bro?
Maybe I need to go look over the Sanders platform.
Bernie and The Donald share the same vision on Immigration? U serious, Bro?
Maybe I need to go look over the Sanders platform.
He views open immigration as a right-wing plot to suppress the cost of labor. He has a history of voting against immigration reform.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/28/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-sounds-lik
I think in the end it will come down to Rubio, Walker or Bush against whichever old white person the party of diversity ultimately fields.
Trump is all good fun, but his positions on trade, immigration and health care are so indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders' that it's hard to see him surviving the primaries.
So you are going with the establishment candidates? Trump clearly isn't a Movement Conservative, nor are his supporters. He's got street cred on immigration, and the earlier birther stuff, so I think his supporters probably generally trust him on other issues and feel he is looking out for them. His lack of conservative orthodoxy is no problem for them. But it probably gives him a ceiling below what is needed to win the nomination once the herd thins.
He views open immigration as a right-wing plot to suppress the cost of labor. He has a history of voting against immigration reform.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/28/on-immigration-bernie-sanders-sounds-lik
They approach immigration very differently. Bernie Sanders isn't appealing to the darker side of man's nature to gain political support when he talks about immigration. Or the age-old play of scapegoating immigrants as a major source of problems. Or delighting in any crime committed by an undocumented, etc...
I do agree the Koch comment was kind of silly, though.
It's fascinating to me that the xenophobes in this country see a tiny minority (3%?) of mostly hard-working people as a major problem, as they ignore off-shoring of jobs, massive tax avoidance, constant war, skyrocketing medical costs, privatizing and consequent degrading of the commons, crumbling infrastructure, anthropogenic climate change, increasing monetization of politics, skyrocketing college costs, widening economic disparity... To them, apparently, the major problems in this country are undocumented immigrants, Planned Parenthood, and the "war on Christmas."
They approach immigration very differently. Bernie Sanders isn't appealing to the darker side of man's nature to gain political support when he talks about immigration. Or the age-old play of scapegoating immigrants as a major source of problems. Or delighting in any crime committed by an undocumented, etc...
I do agree the Koch comment was kind of silly, though.
There's a reason you don't hear about striking farm workers like one did 50 years ago. Or construction laborers.
Historically immigration has suppressed the cost of labor - which is why the working class was usually so upset about it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-26-15, 11:17pm
It contributes to overpopulation. As if there's any water for a growing population anyway. But it's not people from within the U.S. moving to this state. Very few solutions would work well (no I don't believe building a wall would :)), cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants might.
If the working class voters who have been whipped up into xenophobia placed their job loss anger where it belonged they'd be much more angry at the free trade agreement supporting politicians (of both parties, thank you very much Bill Clinton) than they would be at the low/no skilled illegal immigrants that have come to this country over the last 20 years. Those people are washing dishes in restaurants or picking fruit and vegetables. The jobs which these voters used to depend on and have now lost aren't being done by immigrants from mexico or central or south america. They're being done by residents in various countries around the world and their work product shows up in Walmart or Target or Costco with everyday low low prices.
ApatheticNoMore
8-27-15, 3:37am
Trump has come out against various trade agreements (raise tariffs on Mexico! he says. He also rails against China). Now he's Trump, so whether a single word he says can be taken seriously is doubtful (I tried to find out how easy it was to get out of NAFTA, maybe not that hard in theory. Unlike the TPP seems to, it doesn't require all members to agree for a nation to leave.). But a supporter of Trump is as likely to be against trade agreements as illegals I figure.
Jobs washing dishes in restaurants are jobs some people would take, as are gardening and construction etc. jobs done by illegals. The picking fruit is a difficult one, as it's paid so very very poorly and of course it will give you cancer from the chemicals, but that isn't always a deterrent as many people do dangerous jobs that end up killing them. We don't live in a world where people can always be that picky about jobs. So just because a job is objectively bad don't assume someone wouldn't take it. Imagining all these jobs that Americans won't do seems quite fanciful and detached from reality to me - as if they had a choice of nothing but wonderful jobs - I'm not sure the unemployment rate is that low or the safety net that robust - Americans work in coal mines, on oil rigs that blow up, they join the military and see war zones (sometimes for the glory but sometimes for the money) etc.. Washing dishes as bad as it might be, sounds better that that.
I wonder what the actual breakdown is of jobs done by illegals and how many are really jobs no American would take (again the farm labor seems most likely to be). I'm not sure manufacturing jobs are jobs many people have depended on in decades, although yes of course some manufacturing still exists in the U.S.. So to talk about manufacturing may be talking theory while maybe someone actually remembers having had a construction job. Even higher skilled workers may be more threatened by high skilled legal immigration.
I'm not sure what good anger at trade supporting politicians would do, though anger at illegals doesn't either. So you spend hours seething about Obama, well he is really quite horrible (and Hillary was pushing for the trade agreements in the Obama administration as well it seems) and then what? If the answer is just support Bernie Sanders, that's fine by me. But the thing is the American people were not even able to stop Fast Track, what it really came down to brass tacks of actual legislation as opposed to supporting someone who has maybe a 5% change of beating Hillary. I called so many times asking the critters to vote against Fast Track. Voters should spend their time spreading information on the TPP, TPIP, TISA? Maybe 1 in 20 people even know what these are.
They approach immigration very differently. Bernie Sanders isn't appealing to the darker side of man's nature to gain political support when he talks about immigration. Or the age-old play of scapegoating immigrants as a major source of problems. Or delighting in any crime committed by an undocumented, etc...
I do agree the Koch comment was kind of silly, though.
Not being his confessor, I don't care about his motivations. I just think that there is very little to choose from between the two candidates on the immigration issue.
So you are going with the establishment candidates? Trump clearly isn't a Movement Conservative, nor are his supporters. He's got street cred on immigration, and the earlier birther stuff, so I think his supporters probably generally trust him on other issues and feel he is looking out for them. His lack of conservative orthodoxy is no problem for them. But it probably gives him a ceiling below what is needed to win the nomination once the herd thins.
I think that's right. Rage and a desire to bait PC sensibilities isn't much of a platform.
Am I the only person who at some point had to sit and think for a minute before coming up with the vice president's name? (not now when his name has come up. but say, three years ago). As far as I'm concerned the man has been invisible. Perhaps that's a good thing, few mistakes so egregious that they warranted media attention, but he doesn't seem a particularly likely candidate to me.
The media aversion to Sanders, I've thought, is completely amazing. I've seen so much contrasting Clinton vs. Biden - and Biden isn't even running. Bernie hardly gets a mention.
The media aversion to Sanders, I've thought, is completely amazing. I've seen so much contrasting Clinton vs. Biden - and Biden isn't even running. Bernie hardly gets a mention. It's infuriating that someone has to be "interesting" in a social media sort of way to get free political face time. I can't decide if they're deliberately avoiding him for his "scary socialist politics" that might actually indicate a shift in thinking if he became obviously popular, or have just decided he's not entertaining enough.
-- I feel like The Donald is getting an absurd amount of free press just because he's so ugh ergh ... something or other. No one's trumping Trump. Biden is a mystery to me, it's like offering up oatmeal as a side for a Delux Cheezeburger.
The oligarchs own the media and Bernie is against the oligarchy. Trump has the money to have his own media.
True, but he's also a celebrity capering about onstage. I think he'd have plenty of coverage even if he didn't own Fox.
The media aversion to Sanders, I've thought, is completely amazing. I've seen so much contrasting Clinton vs. Biden - and Biden isn't even running. Bernie hardly gets a mention.
I agree. I don't know who's behind it--but I agree with bekkilyn
Joe Biden reminds me of bungling Uncle Wally. He may be a warm and cuddly fellow, but he doesn't inspire confidence.
My happiest indulgence of paranoia is believing that Trump somehow has the money and influence to blur out his own hair in every picture I see of him. Seriously, it's this cotton candy fizz of blondness in front, I squint and still can't make out what's going on.
- eta, I don't care about his appearance per se, it's the bizarre and amusing idea that he's actually able to have a good hair day whenever he wants. I fantasize about a device you can keep in your pocket that projects a sort of hologram of how you want to look, so you never have to worry about what you actually look like. Has The Donald had it invented for him?
People griped about Bill Clinton's expensive air force one haircut. I suspect that in the unlikely event that Trump gets elected we'll have more such episodes...
Maybe I should run for president. My haircuts consist of SO spending 10 minutes with a trimmer buzzing it all down once every 3 weeks. No need to make air force one sit waiting for me. We could do it on the fly. haha.
iris lilies
8-27-15, 10:00pm
My happiest indulgence of paranoia is believing that Trump somehow has the money and influence to blur out his own hair in every picture I see of him. Seriously, it's this cotton candy fizz of blondness in front, I squint and still can't make out what's going on.
- eta, I don't care about his appearance per se, it's the bizarre and amusing idea that he's actually able to have a good hair day whenever he wants. I fantasize about a device you can keep in your pocket that projects a sort of hologram of how you want to look, so you never have to worry about what you actually look like. Has The Donald had it invented for him?
I hope this clarifies for you exactly how The Donald gets his hair to look the way it looks:
1520
...
- eta, I don't care about his appearance per se, it's the bizarre and amusing idea that he's actually able to have a good hair day whenever he wants. I fantasize about a device you can keep in your pocket that projects a sort of hologram of how you want to look, so you never have to worry about what you actually look like. Has The Donald had it invented for him?
I think in the fantasy genre that hologram is known as a glamour...
Not being his confessor, I don't care about his motivations. I just think that there is very little to choose from between the two candidates on the immigration issue.
Well, Bernie Sanders may not be sufficiently liberal for pro-immigration activists but he isn't the same as Donald Trump. For example, Sanders supports, perhaps grudgingly, legalizing the status of the current undocumented workers within our borders. Trump, if I understand his position, wants to deport everyone, and then let the "terrific" ones back in.
I personally do think tone and intentions matter and should be evaluated along with proposed policies. Even if Trump and Sanders had very similar formal platforms, there would still be major differences in their views that would likely lead to different policy outcomes in practice. Sanders' primary concern is for the wages of low-skilled native-born workers, that he believes (rightly) may be harmed by low-skilled immigration. Trump's concern is about the, let's call it, changing "demographics", and crime. As the sausage grinder of policy works to create actual policy, these two different views may lead to different policies.
But yeah, overall, Sanders is definitely not a globalist.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/
People griped about Bill Clinton's expensive air force one haircut. I suspect that in the unlikely event that Trump gets elected we'll have more such episodes...
Maybe I should run for president. My haircuts consist of SO spending 10 minutes with a trimmer buzzing it all down once every 3 weeks. No need to make air force one sit waiting for me. We could do it on the fly. haha.
I think it would be the greatest moment in TV history if someone pulled off Trump's wig on live TV. Maybe at a debate (Lindsey Graham storms the stage). Or the folks who throw pies in people's faces. Anyone really.
My guess is that it is probably sewn in, and someone who just be tugging on it. That would stillbe funny though.
Well, Bernie Sanders may not be sufficiently liberal for pro-immigration activists but he isn't the same as Donald Trump. For example, Sanders supports, perhaps grudgingly, legalizing the status of the current undocumented workers within our borders. Trump, if I understand his position, wants to deport everyone, and then let the "terrific" ones back in.
I personally do think tone and intentions matter and should be evaluated along with proposed policies. Even if Trump and Sanders had very similar formal platforms, there would still be major differences in their views that would likely lead to different policy outcomes in practice. Sanders' primary concern is for the wages of low-skilled native-born workers, that he believes (rightly) may be harmed by low-skilled immigration. Trump's concern is about the, let's call it, changing "demographics", and crime. As the sausage grinder of policy works to create actual policy, these two different views may lead to different policies.
But yeah, overall, Sanders is definitely not a globalist.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/
One may be suffering from the illusion that our culture and safety are at risk from uncontrolled immigration. Another may be suffering from the illusion that we can somehow protect ourselves from competition in trade and labor by erecting various barriers against the world at large. The form may be different, but the substance is the same. I don't care which pose they choose to strike. I will cast my vote based on the practical effects of their policies.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.