What the candidates of both parties aren't talking about.....

a reply to: Aazadan

Hmm, I know zero about Sanders. What's his track record?

On Obama, I recall that Hillary had the straw polls locked up at Iowa. By the time of the Democrat National Convention, it's all Obama. My personal opinion is both Giuliani and Hillary were snookered by TPTB of both parties.

As I didn't know anything about Obama, at that point, I find it interesting that Sanders is in the same 'under the radar' possibility.

I liked the general idea of your last para., yet, the last line "because some of them might work" excludes the damage from the ones that don't 'work'.

I don't exclude an issue orientated candidate from also having leadership ability and be capable of new ideas. I must admit most of the 'new' ideas of late haven't been very good. Some of the best ideas are 'old', especially when measured, result-wise, against some of these new ones

New and improved aren't necessarily better.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You probably wouldn't like Sanders. He describes himself as a socialist and is usually an independent from Vermont but is running under the Democrats this time around. Anyways here's his positions.

On foreign policy he wants the US out of the middle east, and instead make Saudi Arabia and Iran handle ISIS.

On immigration he was fine with not deporting illegals, but he wants to reform the guest worker program so that jobs are going to Americans first.

On health care he wants to repeal Obamacare.

He wants to repeal Citizens United.

On the economy which is where he really wins in my mind, he wants to reign in the too big to fail banks, breaking them up so that they're no longer too big to fail and he wants to bar bank CEO's from serving on the Federal Reserve Board of Directors because it's a conflict of interest. He's against the TPP, and wants to open up offshore drilling.

On gun rights he takes the approach of letting each state decide for themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not too much to argue with there.

Still, that's an "issue orientated" candidate, from what I can see....

What about track record? You left that one out.

a reply to: nwtrucker

On his track record he's pretty consistent, being an independent for most of his career he's been free from party politics and having to keep in line with what the leaders want.

His big thing is that he wants to go against the banks, limiting the power they have in politics these days and somewhat fixing our dubious financial state by breaking them up. On that issue he's pretty much leading the charge.

a reply to: Aazadan

Here's a Scott walker interview. I think you might find this interesting.

video.foxnews.com...=show-clips

a reply to: nwtrucker

This should help:

Bernie Sanders ontheissues.org

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Then be appalled. Kindly stay on topic or start your own thread. Your particular mantra is well exposed elsewhere.

If you dont want it mentioned dont bring it up in the op


Put it in the op and its free game.

But derp derp derp west bombing the ME into caos is a trival matter derp derp derp


Maybe JUST maybe if your goverment had been less bothered with invading people and wasting money on playing world police then could have put those energys into fixing the economy?

And that would mean BOTH republicans and democrats are to blame your side of the pond.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: johnwick

Maybe NAFTA played a bigger starting point than I had given it credit for.

A lot of that had been in place before it was formalized, from what I can see. The auto industry had plants in Canada for a long time before NAFTA. G.M. had it's engines built in Mexico, at least some of them well before NAFTA, as well.

As usual, what seemed innocuous was merely a stepping stone for what we face these days.

I've often said we should withdraw from the WTO, then place increasing import tariffs on manufactured goods as a real fast fix. It would perturb off the rest of the world...but,so what?

Factorys in canada are not a problem.

Hell USA could have free trade with Canada, australia, UK and a good chunk of Europe and not feel worse for ware.
Thats because wages and cost of production would be the same if not more in those country.
There is little to no incentive to outsource as theres little profit to gain.

Problem is free trade to the 3rd world or countrys with terrable working and employment laws like china.
In such places a company can make huge savings.

Plus USA through the new york stock exchange is tied to Tokyo, london and to a lesser extent , singapore, hong kong paris and frankfurt. There economic health is tied to the USA financial sector, cut them off or let them fail and new york turns into a slum city.

What you need is balance.
Not handing over your production rights to china and the 3rd word but still haveing robust and flexable tradeing arrangments with the rich and developed world that can add mutal value.

Uk did the same thing as ypu guys in the 80s and sold our manufactureing off to china and india.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

It's easier to give speeches on minimum wage increases instead of discussing why all the 85k/year jobs have vanished.

At one time, a few years ago, I saidd that the high unemployment, the poor economy, high numbers on food stamps, would become the "new normal".

I was right.

Few years ago?

You should have looked at the UK mate and seen your future after we did the same in the 80s , you should have seen the writting on the wall 2 decades ago.

a reply to: crazyewok

Actually, you raise a very good point. I had missed that aspect completely.

I was aware of the Canadian factor, but as far as NAFTA went, in and of itself, wasn't really that damaging as far as the Mexican side went. NAFTA ended up almost a precursor that set up/justified the third world trade pacts.

I amend my view and place those import tariffs on selected nations. That might lessen the negative impact on the world economy overall.

The trouble being it may already be too late. Serious messing with the Chinese economy would probably bring the house of cards down completely anyways. That's why I'm betting the U.S., after the proper protests, of course, will allow China to keep those South China Sea Islands and the development of that oil potential to stabilize their economic future.....

In any event, thank you for pointing the Euro/U.K. aspect out to me....my bad.

Politicians are pushing the ISIS, etc boogie men. We know who they serve or at least who they don't. Things to help the average person won't be on the table any time soon.

Hearing people cheer for war mongering from Graham shows how messed up it has become.

a reply to: crazyewok

If the U.S. hadn't 'played world police', I highly doubt that the U.K. would still be the U.K.. The cold war likely would have gone the other way.

I am tired of the U.S. addressing much of the U.K.'s blunderings and, as you say, it's a huge financial burden.

However, if you think this planet, being overdosed with reprobates doesn't/didn't require a 'world policeman' no matter how incompetent, you'd be very mistaken.

There's no one who could take the job that wouldn't do far, far worse than the U.S. has. Maybe that will be the inscription on the U.S.'s gravestone....

a reply to: crazyewok

One might look at the title of the OP.. There's plenty of threads to vent about the ME. This doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out.

A deflection is and was the intent....and you know it...I called him on it. (the same applies to you, by the by....

a reply to: nwtrucker

I listened to his interview. It simply backed up my opinion that he's a distant third, the interview was a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing, based on that interview I would completely dismiss him. On the other hand as I've said before he knows how to win an election and if he can commit to the right goals I could potentially support him.

Unfortunately for me, what I look for in politicians is specifics that don't fit into neat little soundbytes, I don't want to hear talking points, I want to hear a credible plan.

On the subjects covered:

Lower taxes - This isn't necessarily a bad thing but I want to hear what he's going to do. He mentioned that his goal in Wisconsin has been to reduce property taxes. That's a fine goal but Wisconsin and the Feds are both to the left on a Laffer Curve, that means that reducing taxes reduces revenue. If he's going to cut taxes where is he going to cut spending to compensate? We're currently 400 billion over budget, lets say he cuts taxes by 25%, we could expect a 25% drop in revenue which would then place us at 1.2 trillion over budget. Where are we going to remove spending to compensate? Furthermore, what we've been seeing lately is that when the feds cut funding to something the states end up running their own programs which pick that tab right back up resulting in no change to overall taxation, only the percentages going to federal vs state. How does he plan to prevent that from happening?

If I go by his plan in Wisconsin his budget measures were as follows:
Drug screening for those on benefits. This has been a massive failure in both states now where it was tried. The number of people caught didn't even pay for the screening costs.

Consolidating government offices - I'll wait to see how that one plays out, it could go either way. From a standpoint of vulnerability to corruption you are better off with a lot of people having a little bit of power each, but from a purely cost effectiveness position you are better off with a few people each having a lot of power. There's probably a happy medium in there somewhere, it's entirely possible that he's finding that medium.

Cuts to college subsidies - I agree with this but any real reform here requires a change to how we process student loans which is beyond his current power. The structure I most favor is removing all government grants and subsidies while simultaneously removing bankruptcy protections on student loans. Then I want to see the colleges themselves providing the loans so that they have an incentive to not just compete on price and loan terms, but so their future relies on producing graduates that will be able to pay back those loans. This solves the issue of overproducing degrees and creating useless degrees. The competition also causes colleges to trim unnecessary classes in order to bring down costs.

Back to his issues.
Reign in regulations - I can't say a whole lot here as I don't know every regulation on the books. I think that in general building codes are far too strict and that environmental impact studies are a waste of time in most cases (excluding potential disruption to waterways). On the other hand I want to see tighter regulations on the financial industry. Which regulations specifically does he want to get rid of? If he can't answer that, at the least he can say what sectors he considers over regulated.

Energy exploration - I'm an all of the above person on energy. Again he didn't give any specifics so I may be reading too much into this. I want to see offshore drilling opened back up, I want to see us building nuclear plants again, and I really want to see a major expansion of geothermal. Also, while I don't like what it does to the environment we need to keep fracking going because there is a whole lot of national leverage and security to be gained in being a major oil exporter (for example, supplying Europe with natural gas when Putin throws a fit).

On Iran I think he's asking for too much. I never read Obama's deal, instead just the outline but I liked what I saw. It's a coalition of nations that are demanding certain conditions on Iran such as the ability to inspect their sites and ensure they aren't stockpiling nuclear material. If we're going to entertain the idea of them having nuclear power in the first place (and I think such a reality is inevitable regardless of our decisions) putting safeguards in place that give us a several month warning on them building a nuclear weapon is a good idea. Furthermore by having a coalition there's international backing to attack them if such a thing becomes necessary. Agreeing to the deal that we did even sidelines their allies in Russia and China. Recognizing Israel would be nice but that's a separate issue from nuclear power, by tying one to the other you ensure that neither will be accomplished. Last, on the subject of missiles I find it to be irrelevant. The next major war will be all about cyber weapons hitting infrastructure and financial entities, an ICBM will likely never even be launched, as such I can't see the wisdom in expending political capital over such a concession. In addition, any removal of missiles aimed at us or our allies would almost certainly require a reciprocal response on our end and I don't think the US and Iran are at a place in their relationship where they can stop pointing weapons at each other, even the US and Europe aren't at such a place.

Gay marriage I find to be irrelevant, to Walker's credit he said as much too. The fact is it doesn't matter what his stance is because it's going to be decided as it was always going to be decided... through the courts rather than legislation, just like every other civil rights issue. I don't agree with his stance here but he's honest about it unlike some others, and in any event an answer one way or the other wouldn't influence my vote.

Overall, actions and unique plans resonate far more with me than talking points and crowd sourced ideas. Rand Paul for example gained a lot of points with me for his plan to remove the Patriot Act, and then proving he was capable enough to pull it off. That's the mix of action and ability that I like to see. As more time passes and we see the effects of Walkers budgets on Wisconsin I'll decide if he meets that bar too. I think his budget is up in July so we'll see what the state looks like then once all the reports come out.

Why doesn't everyone just quit bitching and run themselves? ?

Why do we all wait for the perfect candidate?

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Why doesn't everyone just quit bitching and run themselves? ?

Why do we all wait for the perfect candidate?

I would but my style isn't one that goes far in politics. Politics requires a person be able to summarize the big picture, without ever going into the details that make their plan ultimately succeed or fail, because even if you can do that you'll have 1000 congressional staffers modify your plans before they ever come back around to your desk for a signature.

Plus, I'm not old enough, or in a position to do so. For what it's worth I'm involved on a local level.

a reply to: crazyewok
In general international trade benefits everyone, however you raise an excellent point about trade with developing nations. I think there is a good argument that trade agreements need an ethical framework as well as an economic one.
If you have trade deals with developing nations it should be tied to improving work conditions in that country. This benefits both workers there and at home as they cant be radically undercut by exploitive working conditions.
The problem is people are too used to cheap Primark t-shirts and shiny new phones each year produced by cheap overseas labour.

a reply to: Aazadan

An interesting post. I'd like the same hard look at Sanders. You like his Fed idea. I do not. It merely replaces the top bank people with a proxy that suffers from the same pressures as the 'bankers' do.

The mechanism/power of the Fed remains unchanged.

Lip-stick on a pig still a pig. (The Fed)

A far as Walker being too conservative to be elected, Wisconsin is a blue state and Walker has third election wins under his belt. He also holds the highest poll ratings even now.

Last point I'd make is the last Mid-term elections, they didn't suffer from being too conservative. It was the Tea Party that gained seats, not the Dems or Rhinos....

I also like that Walker continues his role as Governor at least until their budget is finished before making a move.

Bottom line? You weren't going to endorse him anyways....

Nor I Sanders. As much as I like Paul's tenacity, he's the one that is less likely to be elected....not Walker, IMO.

a reply to: ScepticScot

One 'could' tie those issues into a import tariff. Perhaps a reduction in tariffs if and when those conditions improve, including environmental conditions...

a reply to: nwtrucker
Absolutely. Free trade between countries is generally a good thing. However if there is major differences economically and socially then the economic benefits will tend towards a small section of society to the detriment of the general population in both countries.