US Presidential Race

Loved this part - Hillary vs Bernie on Capital Punishment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkXKfli47uo

Probably maybe because I am anti-Capital Punishment

If Bernie becomes the President:

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

Phritz wrote:

Jesus wept!

Carson has always looked awkward to me. That just sums it up. NH is his campaign's death knell.

Pedram wrote:

Phritz wrote:

lmao

omg

Gloriana Steinem : Young women are for Bernie as that's where the boys are

The feminist icon is drawing hackles online for comments made Friday on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher“
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has drawn the wrath of the Twitterverse for suggesting that young women supporting Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign are doing so to gain the attention of men.
“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,'” Steinem told Bill Maher Friday night on the comic’s HBO show “Real Time.”
Maher leapt right on her comment. “Now if I said that, ‘Yeah, they’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d slap me,” he said.
- See more at: https://www.thewrap.com/gloria-steinem-slammed-for-suggesting-young-women-support-bernie-sanders-to-chase-boys/#sthash.5s87mtER.dpuf

https://www.thewrap.com/gloria-steinem-slammed-for-suggesting-young-women-support-bernie-sanders-to-chase-boys/

Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton


Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at an event in New Hampshire on Saturday, telling the crowd and voters in general: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton

Why do they say these stupid things? Is this really gonna help them get young women to vote for Hillary?

Pathetic

I'm not sure have I said this before, but the quality of the candidates is shocking, imo. The Democrats have just two candidates - neither of which appear as convincing as you'd probably hope - while the Republicans can't even find a candidate who would come across as normal.

Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

- Trump is hot mess. Nuff said.

- Marcobot needs his software upgraded. Can't seem to stop spitting the same crap out at events.

- Christie has no credibility and only useful at attacking others. He's short on actual solutions and no one's told him that running 50 states and different from running one. Not to mention Bridge-Gate.

- Kasich seems reasonable enough as he has embraced portions of the ACA as well as cutting taxes to help balance Ohio's budget. Still I do not agree with many of his views socially or politically. He's probably the least of a trainwreck of any of the candidates.

- Cruz is simply not a likable person. He's uniquely hated by several factions on both sides of the spectrum. If you're in that position, it's unlikely you'll be the nominee let alone president. Straight up wackjob. He's certifiable.

- Bush is like Hillary without the controversy. He's just simply bland like vanilla. Nothing exciting about him or his campaign. Doesn't help that he comes from one of the most hated dynasties in American history.

- Carson is just off in his own little world. Such a strange, awkward guy who makes absolutely no sense everytime he talks. I truly believe he's a medical savant. He has no clue how to lead a nation.

I see these candidates and then I remember our last dud was probably Gerald Ford (unfortunately from my adopted home state of Michigan), but then I also remember we had morons like Harding, Hoover, Cleveland, and Andrew Johnson who occupied the Oval Office as well at one point. We're long overdue for a dud at this point as this is weakest field in decades.

As expected. Trump wins New Hampshire.

I would honestly not have thought Trump would still be around at actual primaries a few months ago.

What a failure by the Republican establishment.

And to add insult to injury, first Bush's campaign crashes, then Rubio does well in Iowa, so now where MAYBE they could have coalesced around Rubio, Bush is doing slightly better in New Hampshire again and Kasich is also there

Hopefully this spearheads Kasich into the mainstream, he's the only decent candidate on the Republican side

He is, and that's why he wasn't getting anywhere and won't.

Decent is not what the Republican Party is going for, they have become moron-radicals.

He's also got a few very attackable things on his resumee, like working for Lehman up to the point of their collapse and then collecting bonuses.

He was working in a 3 person office in Ohio, I think that's very defensible. It's his social policies that are more concerning, but that's more for the general election.

Well obviously he's the only sane person in the Republican race.

On the other hand, who cares about the Republican race. They are not going to win the GE anyway.

McLewis wrote:Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

Sanders someone you can vote for without thinking twice tbh.
Better candidate than could be possibly expected on this level.

'Foreign policy experience', what's that supposed to mean? Obama had none either, unless you count a few photo op trips during campaign, carrying along Dick Lugar as if that would mean anything.
As if 'foreign policy experienced' politics actually made a good foreign policy in the past.

The rest of the world would be happy about Sanders, I can guarantee you that.

I don't see Republicans winning the GE with Trump or Cruz, no, probably not. It's...possible but a long shot imo.

Rubio? Definitely possible. Bush? Yeah, definitely. Could see either of those being a reality.

Luckily, Republicans don't seem to be interested in moderates atm I mean, Sanders isn't either, but he's likable, he's not crazy like Cruz or Trump.

Hapless_Hans wrote:Well obviously he's the only sane person in the Republican race.

On the other hand, who cares about the Republican race. They are not going to win the GE anyway.

McLewis wrote:Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

Sanders someone you can vote for without thinking twice tbh.
Better candidate than could be possibly expected on this level.

'Foreign policy experience', what's that supposed to mean? Obama had none either, unless you count a few photo op trips during campaign, carrying along Dick Lugar as if that would mean anything.
As if 'foreign policy experienced' politics actually made a good foreign policy in the past.

The rest of the world would be happy about Sanders, I can guarantee you that.

The rest of the world was happy with Obama too...until he kept the drones going. Sanders would do the same, and nobody in congress would allow him to get anything done.

Listening to his speech last night it makes you feel good, but it just really isn't realistic. It is solely exists on there being a complete political revolution, and that won't happen. It didnt happen in 08-10, when people didnt come back out because they were jaded(and things kinda started to get a little better), and it won't happen now when things are definitely better than the immediate post-recession life. It simply won't happen.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Well obviously he's the only sane person in the Republican race.

On the other hand, who cares about the Republican race. They are not going to win the GE anyway.

McLewis wrote:Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

Sanders someone you can vote for without thinking twice tbh.
Better candidate than could be possibly expected on this level.

'Foreign policy experience', what's that supposed to mean? Obama had none either, unless you count a few photo op trips during campaign, carrying along Dick Lugar as if that would mean anything.
As if 'foreign policy experienced' politics actually made a good foreign policy in the past.

The rest of the world would be happy about Sanders, I can guarantee you that.

The rest of the world was happy with Obama too...until he kept the drones going. Sanders would do the same, and nobody in congress would allow him to get anything done.

Listening to his speech last night it makes you feel good, but it just really isn't realistic. It is solely exists on there being a complete political revolution, and that won't happen. It didnt happen in 08-10, when people didnt come back out because they were jaded(and things kinda started to get a little better), and it won't happen now when things are definitely better than the immediate post-recession life. It simply won't happen.

Oh I don't disagree.
I have no idea to what extent Sanders could successfully govern or implement his changes.

But I think he'd be more principled and headstrong than Obama, no doubt.
Whether that would be more effective, given the gridlocked system etc, the parliament opposition, is another discussion.

Obama was a great candidate, a fantastic candidate, that's why it's a great achievement by the American people that they elected, and reelected him.

But in governance, he was far too much a politician as a president, for his own good.
He should have been more 'ideological', instead of juggling with political capital with regards to everything.
He was constantlcy negotiating, and compromising, with forces that weren't interested in negotiating or compromise, so he ended up on the worse side of the deal perpetually.

I could well imagine Sanders to be different, simply because he's genuinely much more left wing ideological than Obama, who was always mixing policy with careerism.
I think that's a better way to deal with the 'gridlock' than playing along to its logic.
The notion of and insistence on 'bipartisan consensus', in this current situation, is basically just the lowest common denominator of beltway self-congratulation and elitism, lobby-dominated politics, and old boys club.

There's simply no reason not to vote for Sanders if you believe in his issues.

That being said, Hillary got this.

McLewis wrote:Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

- Trump is hot mess. Nuff said.

- Marcobot needs his software upgraded. Can't seem to stop spitting the same crap out at events.

- Christie has no credibility and only useful at attacking others. He's short on actual solutions and no one's told him that running 50 states and different from running one. Not to mention Bridge-Gate.

- Kasich seems reasonable enough as he has embraced portions of the ACA as well as cutting taxes to help balance Ohio's budget. Still I do not agree with many of his views socially or politically. He's probably the least of a trainwreck of any of the candidates.

- Cruz is simply not a likable person. He's uniquely hated by several factions on both sides of the spectrum. If you're in that position, it's unlikely you'll be the nominee let alone president. Straight up wackjob. He's certifiable.

- Bush is like Hillary without the controversy. He's just simply bland like vanilla. Nothing exciting about him or his campaign. Doesn't help that he comes from one of the most hated dynasties in American history.

- Carson is just off in his own little world. Such a strange, awkward guy who makes absolutely no sense everytime he talks. I truly believe he's a medical savant. He has no clue how to lead a nation.

I see these candidates and then I remember our last dud was probably Gerald Ford (unfortunately from my adopted home state of Michigan), but then I also remember we had morons like Harding, Hoover, Cleveland, and Andrew Johnson who occupied the Oval Office as well at one point.  We're long overdue for a dud at this point as this is weakest field in decades.

Incredibly detailed plan for Sanders about how he will pay for Healthcare

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
This plan has been estimated to cost $1.38 trillion per year.

THE PLAN WOULD BE FULLY PAID FOR BY:
A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
Revenue raised: $630 billion per year.
A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.
Revenue raised: $210 billion per year.This year, a family of four taking the standard deduction can have income up to $28,800 and not pay this tax under this plan.
A family of four making $50,000 a year taking the standard deduction would only pay $466 this year.

Progressive income tax rates.
Revenue raised: $110 billion a year.Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be:
37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000.
43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million.
48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. (In 2013, only 113,000 households, the top 0.08 percent of taxpayers, had income between $2 million and $10 million.)
52 percent on income above $10 million. (In 2013, only 13,000 households, just 0.01 percent of taxpayers, had income exceeding $10 million.)
Taxing capital gains and dividends the same as income from work.
Revenue raised: $92 billion per year.Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest American in the country, has said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. The reason is that he receives most of his income from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than income from work. This plan will end the special tax break for capital gains and dividends on household income above $250,000.
Limit tax deductions for rich.
Revenue raised: $15 billion per yearUnder Bernie’s plan, households making over $250,000 would no longer be able to save more than 28 cents in taxes from every dollar in tax deductions. This limit would replace more complicated and less effective limits on tax breaks for the rich including the AMT, the personal exemption phase-out and the limit on itemized deductions.
The Responsible Estate Tax.
Revenue raised: $21 billion per year.This provision would tax the estates of the wealthiest 0.3 percent (three-tenths of 1 percent) of Americans who inherit over $3.5 million at progressive rates and close loopholes in the estate tax.
Savings from health tax expenditures.
Revenue raised: $310 billion per year.Several tax breaks that subsidize health care (health-related “tax expenditures”) would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer health care system, saving $310 billion per year.
Most importantly, health care provided by employers is compensation that is not subject to payroll taxes or income taxes under current law. This is a significant tax break that would effectively disappear under this plan because all Americans would receive health care through the new single-payer program instead of employer-based health care.

Also the Wall Street Derivative Market is like 800-900 trillion so a small speculation tax can not only pay for Free College(70-80 Billion odd maybe?) but could bring in much more extra money to routed to infra.

Also He plans on removing the taxable limit of 250k$ on Social Security (which allows Billionaire to pay much less as a %) which will expand Social Security

Of course he has a plan for healthcare, that's low hanging fruit.

What's his plan for making college tuition free? For reeling in the big banks? For reforming the broken justice system? Fixing the immigration system?

That first one is especially outlandish given the state of the college admissions and financial aid system in this country.

@McLewis, Disagree with the fact that Bernie has no plan on implementing his views. Please explain that point of view. You're wrong imo

Betty La Fea wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Well obviously he's the only sane person in the Republican race.

On the other hand, who cares about the Republican race. They are not going to win the GE anyway.

McLewis wrote:Seriously, I really see myself voting 3rd party at this point. Not a single candidate on either side appears truly electable to me at this point:

- Sanders is saying everything every person my age wants to hear without any type of plan of actually going through with those proposals. That and he has no foreign policy experience.

- Clinton should've been the most electable, but just seems so plastic and wooden not mention arrogant. She should've treated that e-mail stuff with better care and has been a gaffe-machine left and right. Her whole campaign reaks of unpreparedness for what Sanders is doing. Her credibility with all key groups is severely shot to pieces.

Sanders someone you can vote for without thinking twice tbh.
Better candidate than could be possibly expected on this level.

'Foreign policy experience', what's that supposed to mean? Obama had none either, unless you count a few photo op trips during campaign, carrying along Dick Lugar as if that would mean anything.
As if 'foreign policy experienced' politics actually made a good foreign policy in the past.

The rest of the world would be happy about Sanders, I can guarantee you that.

The rest of the world was happy with Obama too...until he kept the drones going. Sanders would do the same, and nobody in congress would allow him to get anything done.

Listening to his speech last night it makes you feel good, but it just really isn't realistic. It is solely exists on there being a complete political revolution, and that won't happen. It didnt happen in 08-10, when people didnt come back out because they were jaded(and things kinda started to get a little better), and it won't happen now when things are definitely better than the immediate post-recession life. It simply won't happen.

Yes it will. People are becoming more and more liberalized. for their own good. People are actually educating themselves and not believing in bullshit conservative crap

The tea baggers aka the GOP is the one who got us into this bullshit into the middle east. Obama chooses the lesser evil and uses drones instead of actual American lives.