Democratic nomination 2016

WIP · August 17, 2015

I respectfully disagree, but at this point in time it is all speculation. It appears that the Obama Health Plan is permanent. Roosevelt is remembered for Social Security and Johnson for Medicare. "Obama Care" will be one of his legacies.

Obama's healthcare plan is managed private insurance...exactly what the Republicans proposed 20 years ago as their fallback position when they were afraid the Democrats were going to expand Medicare into a universal program. It's a stopgap measure at best...in some US states, people save money buying a policy on the new health insurance exchanges, other states people have to spend more. Over time, the costs of this managed system will keep rising faster than a public system with just one insurer. No part of the plan deals with uncontrolled, rising costs of prescription drugs.

Obama got the Americans out of Iraq and I believe will keep them out of a land war in the Middle East. The nuclear deal with Iran may go down in history as one of the bravest acts that avoided a Middle East meltdown.

The truth is that Obama did not want to get the troops out of Iraq, but was forced out by the Maliki Government, which refused to extend the occupation deadline signed with George W Bush. If that makes Obama the peacemaker, how does that balance out the wars and regime change attempts started by Obama since taking office. Libya is a total disaster...but nobody hears about it because of pro-war media and a Republican opposition that can only go in one direction: to the right. All they can do is yack on and on about that strange consulate in Benghazi while never examining turning Libya into a state of complete anarchy loaded with US weapons...many of which have been sold on the black market. Then there's Yemen....supposedly with the constant drone bombing of one target after another, this war crime tactic was supposed to maintain peace and eliminate Al Qaeda. Now their Saudi allies are bombing everything in sight, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, the US has had to abandon operations after a full scale sectarian civil war broke out. Syria=clusterf***, Iraq could fall apart at any point, and the only way to beat ISIS is to put troops back on the ground there. Is negotiations with Iran a success? We'll find out in the near future.

Opening up relations with Cuba, addressing clean energy and maintaining a strong economy in the face of a global recession will all be considered success. Obviously, it will be a long time before either one of us is proven correct but historically, it is the good things and the saving of lives that history celebrates. I believe his record is far better than the last eight American Presidents.

1. The US is ending the embargo and restoring relations with Cuba because they have no good options to justify the status quo. Almost no other nation recognizes the ban on doing business with Cuba, and with Russia and China putting big money in during the past year, it's the only way for the US to exercise any control or influence with Cuba.

2. Obama spent 7 years doing nothing on climate change, and then tosses out this feel good package late in the 4th quarter when the next president will have to see it through Congress! Plus, offshore drilling and even Arctic drilling has been approved before this deal was announced.

3. The "strong" US economy did not trickle down to average wage earners as wages increased one quarter as much as the rate of inflation. With China going in to major recession, the prospects for the US are no better than Canada, Brazil, Russia, India and many other nations that have already stalled out.

Then there is that looming iceberg - derivative investments, which are even larger than they were in 07, still unregulated, and still inflating the values of stocks and bonds. That whole thing could fall on Obama's watch...or blow up after the next president takes over.

It is interesting that both Republican and Democrats seem to agree on a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Every US president concerned about their legacy, has a huge incentive to start wars and engage in international conflicts, because the "great" presidents are all wartime presidents. Jimmy Carter was the only recent president to keep America out of war....and he's rewarded with a low ranking that can't be justified even if you try to blame him for the whole recession years of the 70's. And Nixon had his Watergate...which under today's media rules, would more than likely have been dumped from the rotation for a feature on the Kardashians. Nixon opened the door for diplomacy with China and the Soviet Union and was winding down the Vietnam War....so a lot on his resume should have given him a higher score. Ford was punished for giving Nixon a pardon rather than face the national turmoil of a long impeachment trial of the former president. He made some structural changes to reduce the powers of the presidency to try to prevent the kinds of overreach that Nixon made....but every president after Ford has been clawing back more control.

One president with a high ranking that is totally unjustified is Andrew Jackson! Right now, I'm reading a book on the history of slavery in America called "The Half Was Never Told", which covers a lot of the economic information that has never been included in books on slavery. For Jackson's part, he was hugely popular in the 1830's for the economic boom that came with his leadership....which was fueled by seizing more native territories with his indian wars, and allowing slaveowners and their slaves to set up new cotton plantations. Banking regulations were relaxed to provide easy credit for those buying slaves and moving out west, and like other booms, it all went bust in the 1840's when Jackson was safely out of office. The depression of the 1840's shrunk the economic power of the south and fueled a small, anemic abolitionist movement in the north, that led to a serious power struggle between north and south that eventually ended up with a Civil War....but historians prefer to blame the weak leadership of James Buchanan because he happened to be in the White House when the war broke out. And then Lincoln gets no. one because he ended the war! Take it all with a grain of salt I guess.

Charles Anthony · August 17, 2015

Folks,

Going back and editing/deleting your own posts resulting in the deliberate disruption of civil discussion is absolutely unacceptable in this forum.

Deleted due to ....

....irrelevant.

kimmy · August 17, 2015

True. So what do you want her or anyone else to do? Forego the money and let the Republicans completely swamp them in election spending? With the supreme court ruling and a Republican congress there isn't thing one she or Sanders can do about it.

I believe Sanders is suggesting a constitutional amendment to put an end to Citizens United, and he's not the first to suggest that. I think John McCain has said something similar. There's actually bipartisan support among voters on the subject... polls show that over 80% of US voters feel something should be done about big money in politics.

From what economists say free trade is a good thing overall. I'm not familiar enough with the complex agreements being negotiated to know whether this one is good or bad. And I suspect Sandes isn't either.

Well, one of the big problems is that *nobody* knows what's in TPP; it's been negotiated in complete secrecy. Hilary is probably among the relative handful that knows what's actually going on. There was some material released on WikiLeaks a while back, and while it's hard to be sure that stuff was actually real, it turns out that very little of it was actually about trade. One thing that attracted a lot of attention was rules making it much harder to get generic drugs onto the market; granting pharmaceutical companies a way of "evergreening" their patents to lock out generics in perpetuity. That's probably great news if you own a pharmaceutical company, but it has little to do with free trade and doesn't actually benefit consumers. Just the opposite. There's more stuff like that. There's legal remedies for companies to go to extranational courts to overturn or pursue financial damages for local laws they find inconvenient, things like that. Is that really the kind of stuff economists are talking about when they talk about the benefits of free trade?

What's the benefit of free trade agreements for us regular folks? We get access to cheaper consumer goods, right? Well, we've already got access to cheap consumer goods. You can get on the web, contact a Chinese seller, and get them to ship their gear right to your mailbox. Last month I bought a Chinese knockoff of an $80 knife. Amazing quality. High quality steel. Incredibly well made. It cost me $9, including shipping. Freaking amazing. I mean, we're already benefiting from trade with China. TPP isn't about giving you and me access to more options.

And why should it be that we're depending on Julian Assange to get this information?

What does Sanders think he's going to do about it? The Republican congress won't provide any more money. Oh, he's going to make it free? Take on the $70 billion annual cost? How many votes you think that will get in congress?

Hilary has come out with her own plan, which will cost $350 billion over 10 years, so that's something at least.

-k

Moonlight Graham · August 17, 2015

What's Hilary going to do about Wall Street? The billionaire class? She spends her time in the Hamptons rubbing elbows with those guys. Where's her SuperPAC going to get a billion dollars from if she does anything about that? Obama has had 8 years to do something about it, and the best they could do was Dodd-Frank, which has been steadily gutted since before the presidential ink even dried. And Obama's DoJ is responsible for journalists coining the phrase "too big to jail".

What's Hilary going to say about Trans Pacific Partnership? She spent years flying around the world promoting it to foreign governments. She can say she's concerned about it now, but that would be kind of like Grand Moff Tarkin saying he's concerned about Alderaan's ecological condition.

For the past 8 years, the Democrats' policy on college affordability has been to make it easier for students to borrow more money, so that colleges can keep raising tuition. Does Hilary have something fresh up her sleeve on that front? Maybe she's saving it for closer to the election.

KImmy I agree with your sentiments here. Hillary is so imbedded with the establishment it's not funny. She's a status quo Democratic, as much as you can find, as "Washington" as you can get. I think she's a decent leader and probably won't screw things up badly, but a vote for her would be a vote for the system.

She can't claim to be "for the regular folk" when she hasn't been able to walk around in public without security and cameras for the last 25 years.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

Big Guy · August 17, 2015

Obama's healthcare ...

Sorry for adding to topic drift. I thank WIP for his/her response. Unfortunately, I will not be around when one of us is proven to be correct. I will no longer add to drift here.

bush_cheney2004 · August 17, 2015

....Obama got the Americans out of Iraq and I believe will keep them out of a land war in the Middle East. The nuclear deal with Iran may go down in history as one of the bravest acts that avoided a Middle East meltdown.

No, U.S. ground forces exited Iraq according to the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement that was negotiated by the Bush administration. U.S. forces (including ground forces & land war) are back in Iraq as directed by President Obama and the strategic framework with the Iraqi government.

Hillary Clinton would continue such policy and would be more likely to increase U.S. military action(s) in the region.

Edited August 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004 · August 17, 2015

....What's the benefit of free trade agreements for us regular folks?

Free trade agreements have nothing to do with benefits for "regular folks". Benefits resulting from the economic efficiencies may or may not be the by-product of such agreements. Cross border shopping will always be an option.

Edited August 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Argus · August 18, 2015

I believe Sanders is suggesting a constitutional amendment to put an end to Citizens United, and he's not the first to suggest that. I think John McCain has said something similar. There's actually bipartisan support among voters on the subject... polls show that over 80% of US voters feel something should be done about big money in politics.

To get a constitutional amendment started you need a two thirds vote in either the House or the Senate, and I leave it to your imagination the odds of that happening, or a constitutional convention called by two thirds of the state legislatures. There are currently 31 Republican governors, in case you weren't counting. A large majority of the US public has long wanted a national health care program similar to what we and the Europeans have, but they still don't have one and aren't going to get one.

Well, one of the big problems is that *nobody* knows what's in TPP; it's been negotiated in complete secrecy. Hilary is probably among the relative handful that knows what's actually going on. There was some material released on WikiLeaks a while back, and while it's hard to be sure that stuff was actually real, it turns out that very little of it was actually about trade. One thing that attracted a lot of attention was rules making it much harder to get generic drugs onto the market; granting pharmaceutical companies a way of "evergreening" their patents to lock out generics in perpetuity. That's probably great news if you own a pharmaceutical company, but it has little to do with free trade and doesn't actually benefit consumers. Just the opposite. There's more stuff like that. There's legal remedies for companies to go to extranational courts to overturn or pursue financial damages for local laws they find inconvenient, things like that. Is that really the kind of stuff economists are talking about when they talk about the benefits of free trade?

Not especially. Certainly nations will try to offset likely damages to one of their industries by asking for rules which favour another, with the idea being the deal as a whole will favour them. But without knowing what is going to be in the deal I have to question why the US democrats would want to head into an election with an agreement which doesn't help them overall, or why Canada would, given this deal was supposed to be done before the election.

What's the benefit of free trade agreements for us regular folks? We get access to cheaper consumer goods, right? Well, we've already got access to cheap consumer goods.

That is not actually the benefit we're supposed to get. It's a side effect. The idea is that country A has industries which can build things more efficiently than country B and country B has industries which can build things more efficiently than country A, so you have free trade, which benefits the superior industries in both countries - although admittedly at the expense of the less efficient industries, and as a side effect, people get better prices on all goods since only the more efficient industries are now operating.

And why should it be that we're depending on Julian Assange to get this information?

Well, you don't know if it's the right information. Why are things done in secrecy? Dunno. Probably because the industries that are going to be dumped on in each country will kick up a screaming fuss if they can do so before the deal gets signed.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Argus

bush_cheney2004 · August 18, 2015

....A large majority of the US public has long wanted a national health care program similar to what we and the Europeans have, but they still don't have one and aren't going to get one.

Nope....single payer health care most recently polled at just above 50% in January 2015, and has polled as low as 37% during the ACA political process. President Obama and the Democrats abandoned single payer as political suicide.

Michael Hardner · August 18, 2015

President Obama and the Democrats abandoned single payer as political suicide.

Maybe it will now be revived, as the Republican debate revealed that it is/was Trump's favoured method of healthcare governance ?

bush_cheney2004 · August 18, 2015

Maybe it will now be revived, as the Republican debate revealed that it is/was Trump's favoured method of healthcare governance ?

Not very likely...Trump is just throwing hand grenades whenever and wherever he can to keep the media focus on his campaign. Remember, the Clintons tried to pass universal healthcare back in the 90's and failed. President Obama's team learned from that mistake.

Big Guy · August 19, 2015

It is far too early to have a solid view of what is really happening on the ground. I find it amusing that this next election looked like (and still does at times) it is the Democrats to lose. The Republicans are spending so much time burning each other that Democrats are saving a lot of money on Campaign advertising.

With Hillary starting to waver and it appearing that she may not be crowned before the convention, some interesting and new scenerios should be considered. Votes that are committed during the caucuses and primaries are guaranteed only for the first vote. Most delegates are then released to make their own choices. Elizabeth Warren and Al Gore or even Biden may decide to wait, get a few write in votes during the primaries and then declare at the convention - to be swept in by a "grass roots wave".

The same may happen with the Republicans - except that when Trump finally flames out in the primaries, he will still have a number of committed delegates at the Republican convention. Trump supporters seem to be the fanatical kind who will hold that vote until directed to support somebody else. Trump may then become the king maker at the Republican convention making the final decision on who will be the successful candidate.

Politics can sure be interesting at times.

WIP · August 19, 2015

Sorry for adding to topic drift. I thank WIP for his/her response. Unfortunately, I will not be around when one of us is proven to be correct. I will no longer add to drift here.

Someone will have to start history threads sometime! On the US healthcare issue though, I can't let it go without noting that the primary fuel for the Bernie Sanders Campaign is his promise to expand Medicare into a national health insurance program...like we and the rest of the developed world have. On that count, Obama's middling half-measure - Obamacare, will be scrapped long before it has a chance to leave any legacy.

WIP · August 19, 2015

Nope....single payer health care most recently polled at just above 50% in January 2015, and has polled as low as 37% during the ACA political process. President Obama and the Democrats abandoned single payer as political suicide.

No, they abandoned single payer because Obama...and just about every other corporate Democrat like his hand-picked point man for the ACA - Max Baucus, take large amounts of money from the health insurance industry, big pharma and the private hospital corporations...the usually unmentioned 3rd major opponent of health insurance reform.

There were radical left Democrats in Congress arguing for a Medicare expansion or at least a public option to buy into Medicare, and Obama sold them out because his money comes from the private insurance industry and they want as little real healthcare reform as possible!

WIP · August 19, 2015

Free trade agreements have nothing to do with benefits for "regular folks".

You don't say! I think most "regular folks" figured that out after what's happened with every "free trade" agreement so far.

bush_cheney2004 · August 19, 2015

You don't say! I think most "regular folks" figured that out after what's happened with every "free trade" agreement so far.

Then they wouldn't ask such silly questions. And even more absurd is the idea that the U.S. negotiates free trade zones for the benefit of "regular folks" in Canada. Canadians for Obama didn't understand that they were cutting their own throats by worshipping a candidate in a foreign election.

They will do the same thing again in 2016 for reasons only they understand.

socialist · August 20, 2015

Someone will have to start history threads sometime! On the US healthcare issue though, I can't let it go without noting that the primary fuel for the Bernie Sanders Campaign is his promise to expand Medicare into a national health insurance program...like we and the rest of the developed world have. On that count, Obama's middling half-measure - Obamacare, will be scrapped long before it has a chance to leave any legacy.

Bernie Sanders said he doesn't owe Black Lives Matter and apology which is a far more robust response than you'll ever get from Hillary. I can see why this guy has Trump-like appeal to socialists.

WIP · August 20, 2015

Bernie Sanders said he doesn't owe Black Lives Matter and apology which is a far more robust response than you'll ever get from Hillary. I can see why this guy has Trump-like appeal to socialists.

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton made the...what could be fatal mistake of allowing two BLM protesters back stage after one of her scripted rallies, to talk about their issues. Hillary is so vain and accustomed to dealing with weasles in MSM and the Democratic Party, that she just thought she could talk her way past her own track record when she piloted through some of the worse "tough on crime" bills back in the 90's, when Billie was triangulating his way to the center and taking away Republican issues.

Democracy Now posted the 16 min. video with transcript yesterday, and a brief interview with the protesters afterwards. I don't have a dog in the Democratic Party's pointless presidential race, but I'd say that if Bernie comes off looking bad for getting mad about being interrupted by protesters at a Netroots conference last month, Hillary's unmasked arrogance makes her look much worse! This is the prevalent attitude of wealthy privileged elites whether they call themselves liberals or conservatives!

Argus · August 22, 2015

Hillary's unmasked arrogance makes her look much worse! This is the prevalent attitude of wealthy privileged elites whether they call themselves liberals or conservatives!

Good thing Donald Trump has arrived, then. I can see how Americans are rejoicing in his lack of privilege and arrogance.

Shady · August 22, 2015

Hillary Clinton is in big trouble. Joe Biden's set to announce, and her email scandal keeps getting worse. And then there's the whole pay to play revelations regarding her time as secretary of state, decisions she made, and donations and fees paid to the Clinton foundation and her husband.

Shady · August 22, 2015

More bad news for Hillary. Biden meets with Warren.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/politics/joe-biden-washington-meetings/index.html

WIP · August 22, 2015

Good thing Donald Trump has arrived, then. I can see how Americans are rejoicing in his lack of privilege and arrogance.

I find it a scary trend when people start following demagogues. The right wing rhetoric in the US keeps getting more and more extreme with each passing year, and Republican hopefuls keep raising the bar....can you imagine a Republic candidate trying to court the Latino vote like Dubya did in 2000 today?

As for Trump raising the bar, this latest example of his comments about a racist attack on a homeless 60 year old Latino tells us a lot about the attitudes of the rich and privileged and about Trump's arrogance on a personal level:Donald Trump’s appalling reaction to a hate crime committed in his name

Shady · August 22, 2015

This is just a sad and pathetic attempt to silence discussion about illegal immigration. Regardless, this thread is about the Democrats and their nomination. Please stop with the thread drift.

Charles Anthony · August 22, 2015

Any and all posts which perpetuate the thread drift will be automatically nixed. We encourage you to start a new thread to continue in that direction.

Please stop with the thread drift.

Indeed.

Argus · August 22, 2015

This is just a sad and pathetic attempt to silence discussion about illegal immigration. Regardless, this thread is about the Democrats and their nomination. Please stop with the thread drift.

It's not thread drift. Someone mentioned Clinton's arrogance and privilege and how people dislike her for it. The obvious corollary is that Trump glories in arrogance and privilege and he's packing in stadiums with delighted crowds. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Clinton. But her problems seem to stem from a neverending coverage of a minor email miscue from years ago.

Everyone knows why she used private email, ironically, because she knew she was going to have the Republican hit squads demanding all the email she sent while in office so they could pour through it searching for anything they could use to smear her with. As for sending the occasional classified email. Based on my government experience, I believe if you checked the email records you'd find every single person in a position of authority in the United States government over the past twenty five years had sent some which shouldn't have been sent, given their classification levels, or should have been encrypted (which is a pain in the ass). This is largely because so much junk gets technically classified even when it's not really important.

I'm also guessing that the Chinese and Russians are reading the official emails from every top administration official and have been for years. American network security is a sieve. So is ours, btw.