Mr. Donald Trump ?

[kickingandscreaming]

Trump is the guy who tells it to you straight and no, he is not a father figure. Don't be insinuating things. Authoritarian personality? Yes, by all means > I want a President who, when he opens his mouth to talk, every one quiets down, And you know he is speaking the truth. Too much to ask? I think not.

You actually think Trump tells it like it is?  Trump's run for president is a piece of "performance art"-- if I can grace this coarse performance with the word "art."  The whole thing is a lie.  From those who know him, they say he's not a misogyist or a racist or a xenophobe, but the whole thing is an act because he knows there's a demographic of people who are like that who he can arouse.  He's totally messing with us.  Is that honesty?

Here's a snippet from an interview I heard on NPR today with a NY Daily News columnist who knows Trump personally:

As a woman and as a New Yorker, I do not understand this whole racist-biggot-sexist thing with Donald. I’ve known him for many, many years, I’ve never known him to be a racist, a biggot, a sexist.”

Do you think Donald Trump is those things now – a racist, a biggot and a sexist?

“I think that he is – he knows how to win and he looked at the field and he said ‘These are the guys who are not being talked to. These are the disenfranchised blue collar workers who have this secret racism behind them, and I’m going to hit them.’ And now he’s become the monster that he created.”

How much did you and other New York reporters help create him?

“We did not create him. We put him on steroids. We didn’t create him though, he created himself. Nobody can create Donald.”

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/04/18/new-york-daily-news-linda-stasi

Here's what she said about Lying Ted Cruz:

“Ted Cruz, to me, is a self-loathing son of an immigrant because his father fought alongside Fidel Castro. His father came to this country illegally. And what does Ted Cruz hate more than anything? Illegal immigrants.”

[Fabkiwi06]

What Trump (and Sanders) have really done is show the MASSIVE divide between the generations and what we want from our country and the values we hold.

Trump has also shown what an absolute mockery our political system is and how easy it is to completely hack apart.

Both sides pretty much agree that something needs to change - we just can't agree what that change is.

[MooseMom]

What Trump (and Sanders) have really done is show the MASSIVE divide between the generations and what we want from our country and the values we hold.

I am not sure I agree entirely with this.  Trump supporters seem to be of all ages.

Sanders does attract a disproportionate amount of younger people, and this disturbs me because the same was true for Obama, yet these same younger people didn't bother turning out for the midterms in 2010.  They turned out again in 2012, but yet again didn't bother to vote in the 2014 midterms, and this is how we got such a divided government.  You can't support your presidential choice in the general yet abandon him in the midterms.  I am afraid that if Sanders is elected, the same fate awaits him.

Which are the values that younger people hold that aren't shared by older people?  How would you define the "massive" divide between the generations?

[Michael Murphy]

Sanders problem is that he needs to win New York and the independent young voters who have flocked to him can't vote in the New York Primary since most are Registered Independent and New York is a closed primary only registered Democrats can vote today.

[iolaire]

Sanders problem is that he needs to win New York and the independent young voters who have flocked to him can't vote in the New York Primary since most are Registered Independent and New York is a closed primary only registered Democrats can vote today.

The whole Sander's has only young people bothers me. 

I'll take Sanders over Clinton over anyone else... As a 41 year old I see numerous people my age group on Facebook who promote Sanders talking points.  Not being around a lot of "young" people I see his supporters are more family oriented.  They like his stance on things that will affect their children, such as GMOs and Fracking, as well as dealing with some of our big business and big political issues.

I just clicked through some of the photos on Google images and yes the people in the front are younger, but there is a mix of ages there.  I guess my question is the "younger" statement real?  Or is it just something that the media and the public grabs onto without fully vetting - similar to the statement like Trump supporters are racists - it might be true in some case but is also blatantly false (an offensive) in other cases.

[MooseMom]

I just clicked through some of the photos on Google images and yes the people in the front are younger, but there is a mix of ages there.  I guess my question is the "younger" statement real?  Or is it just something that the media and the public grabs onto without fully vetting - similar to the statement like Trump supporters are racists - it might be true in some case but is also blatantly false (an offensive) in other cases.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Sanders has "only" younger voters, rather, that more younger voters are going for him than are going for Clinton.  And it does seem to be a claim that has been vetted.  It is simple to verify this through polling, but it is not easy to verify how many "racists" are supporting Trump.  Young people will confess to being young and can prove their age, but if asked directly "Are you a racist", I imagine that most people won't admit to it.

[kickingandscreaming]

Sanders does attract a disproportionate amount of younger people, and this disturbs me because the same was true for Obama, yet these same younger people didn't bother turning out for the midterms in 2010.  They turned out again in 2012, but yet again didn't bother to vote in the 2014 midterms, and this is how we got such a divided government.  You can't support your presidential choice in the general yet abandon him in the midterms.  I am afraid that if Sanders is elected, the same fate awaits him.

There's a big difference between Sanders and Obama.  A lot of people who were moved to support Obama became very disenchanted (myself included) when it became clear that he was more of the same.  And they stayed home (I didn't).  I'm not happy about but they didn't just abandon the process without a cause.  Sanders is actually mobilizing a movement.  I wouldn't be surprised if it split off into a 3rd party as it represents a (pretty big) wing of the Dem party that isn't being addressed at all by the established Democratic party machine.  I think the degree of mobilization is different.

I'm for Sanders and I'm 74.  I've been disappointed by "New Democrats" for too long.  They have ruined the party and have become just another flavor of corporate-elite-driven politics.  They've moved the needle waaaaaay off from where true Dem values should be--much further left than the DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) who dominate the party.  They're actually out of step with most of the American population who are more progressive than the politicians who pretend to represent We the People.

[MooseMom]

There's a big difference between Sanders and Obama.  A lot of people who were moved to support Obama became very disenchanted (myself included) when it became clear that he was more of the same.

This is an interesting comment.  What do you see as the biggest differences between Sanders the candidate and Obama the candidate?

Do you think that Obama really became "more of the same", or do you think it was more of a case of being him being thwarted by McConnell and Boehner at every turn?

[Simon Dog]

Which are the values that younger people hold that aren't shared by older people?

Younger voters are more likely to see government spending as the solution, as they have not yet reached the point in life where they pay huge taxes; about $1000 a month just in taxes on their home (protection money so they are not evicted by the government), and are the "makers" who are funding the "takers".  A 21 year old who thinks that free tuition, rent control, high minimum wage; etc. are the solution to society's problems changes his/her tune when he/she becomes a 40 year old being told to pay for it all.

Remember the classic:

- If you are not a liberal at age 20, you don't have a heart
- If you are not a conservative at age 40, you don't have a brain
- If you are not a curmudgeon at age 60 you haven't been paying attention

[kickingandscreaming]

This is an interesting comment.  What do you see as the biggest differences between Sanders the candidate and Obama the candidate?

It's both the candidate and the times. And the level of desperation in the world. People are looking for something different.

Of course history will tell the tale.  It's not likely that we'll see what kind of president Sanders would have been, I'm sorry to say.  But as a candidate, he was unvarnished and unabashedly progressive. He's an outsider--the only Independent in Congress.  The only Democratic Socialist.  This is hindsight, but Obama was very slick.  Turned out to be a corporate whore--like so many others--bought and paid for.  They were both invigorating candidates and both had a very strong following.  But Obama turned out to be a disappointment to many progressives.  And that always makes voters feel disenfranchised and so they stay home.

Do you think that Obama really became "more of the same", or do you think it was more of a case of being him being thwarted by McConnell and Boehner at every turn?

Both. Obama wanted so hard to please them that he gave away the store.  The GOP was only too happy to take it.

[MooseMom]

It's both the candidate and the times. And the level of desperation in the world. People are looking for something different.

Can you elaborate?  There are a lot of people around the world who are desperate for all kinds of reasons.  I'm sure people look for "something different" if they are unhappy or feel disgruntled, but to get what they want, they need to decide exactly what "different" means and whether or not it is government or societal change that will bring about that change.

Of course history will tell the tale.  It's not likely that we'll see what kind of president Sanders would have been, I'm sorry to say.  But as a candidate, he was unvarnished and unabashedly progressive. He's an outsider--the only Independent in Congress.  The only Democratic Socialist.  This is hindsight, but Obama was very slick.  Turned out to be a corporate whore--like so many others--bought and paid for.  They were both invigorating candidates and both had a very strong following.  But Obama turned out to be a disappointment to many progressives.  And that always makes voters feel disenfranchised and so they stay home.

As a candidate, Sanders has brought and can still bring progressive issues to the fore.  Yes, he does seem to be an outsider, but he's been in Congress for yonks, so I am not sure how much support a President Sanders would have in Congress.  I don't know what kind of long term working relationships he has forged that would come to his aid if he wants a particularly contention piece of legislation to pass.  Being an "outsider" is not always a good thing.

To say that Obama is a "corporate whore" is a sweepingly harsh statement, particularly for a President who was opposed by the opposition party from the evening he was inaugurated.  Phrases like "corporate whore" are fun to sling around, but what exactly do you mean?  Unfortunately, our tax laws are such that corporations can do pretty much as they please to turn a profit, and it is Congress that legislates, not the Executive Branch.  Even a President Sanders would not be able to pass corporate tax reform; he'd have to get Congress to do that.  Too many people are confused about what the President can do as opposed to what the Congress can do, especially when it comes to budgets and funding.  A President can promise all sorts of fiscal candy, but it is Congress that ultimate decides how much candy (or how little) we get.

Many Obama detractors claim that he thinks he is a King and acts like it.  You'd probably get more of what you want if that were true.  People who feel that Obama was not progressive enough should have gone out to the polls during TWO midterms and voted for down ticket progressives.  I don't care if some voters are in a hump because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted and so decided to pout and not vote.  The only way to guard against further disappointment is to vote in every election, particularly the local ones.  If you do not, I don't want to hear from you.

Both. Obama wanted so hard to please them that he gave away the store.  The GOP was only too happy to take it.

Obama ran on the promise of working with the opposition.  He promised to reach across the aisle and work with Congress in a bipartisan way.  And that is what voters voted for.  Twice.  Whether or not he "gave away the store" is subject to debate.  I don't think John Boehner would agree with that assessment.  He was booted out by the Tea Party contingent BECAUSE the House GOPs were getting NOTHING they wanted, so which is it?  The GOP will say that the ACA was shoved down its throat, and I didn't see a store go down with it. 

[Simon Dog]

We are now in a battle between the makers and the takers, and the takers (by sheer force of number) will eventually win.

The simplified view is that Democrats want to transfer wealth from the makers to the takers, and the Republicans want to let the makers keep it.  I know it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is the essence of the basic difference between the two and why people on the doll vote overwhelmingly "D".

The FSA (Free Stuff Army) has an endless supply of recruits.

[kickingandscreaming]

The only way to guard against further disappointment is to vote in every election, particularly the local ones.  If you do not, I don't want to hear from you.

You're free not to listen to me in any case.  But I have never missed an election in the last 53 years since I became eligible to vote.  I am an activist. Not a sitter outer.  I have strong progressive views and I become MORE progressive with every passing year (in contrast to what Simon Dog says) as I become more vulnerable and have more empathy/compassion for others who are vulnerable in our society (and the rest of the world).

I think good government can do a great deal for We the People.  And should.  But it hasn't been working for a while for ordinary people.  Our government is now a plutocracy and not a democracy (or even a republic).  The system is controlled by money that buys influence and shapes policy that effects everyone.  It helps the very, very rich (who don't need help) by giving them all kinds of tax breaks that robs the coffers intended to keep the whole ship afloat.  And it deprives those who need it most because there is no money and ill-conceived priorities shaped by the corrosive and corrupting influence of money that floods the elections and buys off our representatives and Presidents.

As a candidate, Sanders has brought and can still bring progressive issues to the fore.  Yes, he does seem to be an outsider, but he's been in Congress for yonks, so I am not sure how much support a President Sanders would have in Congress.  I don't know what kind of long term working relationships he has forged that would come to his aid if he wants a particularly contention piece of legislation to pass.  Being an "outsider" is not always a good thing.

Sanders would have at least tried to clean up the money-in-politics fiasco.  It would have been a start. It wouldn't have been easy. Sanders has been in government for "yonks" it is true.  And for yonks he has been consistently on the same path-- one that I approve of and feel is needed.  He hasn't been a flashy member of Congress, but he is known as the "amendment king." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/)  He has been slipping in progressive amendments into very non-progressive GOP bills for decades.  He does know how to work with the opposition. (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/bernie-sanders-is-a-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway/450597/)

But he has been lone voice in many ways.  One that I wish we had listened to.  He called the Iraq war for the disaster that it turned out to be in 2002 (https://youtu.be/9p35NmUnMsY).  He called out the Panama trade deal as an open door to tax evasion that it turned out to be (http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/sanders_ardently_opposed_the_trade_deal_that_helped_make_the_panama_papers_scandal_clinton_supported_it/).  He has harped on the need to reform the banks and Wall Street and restore Glass-Steagall long before Wall St and the Big Banks tanked our economy.  (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/264675-clinton-and-summers-are-wrong-on-sanderss-glass-steagall-proposal   

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing we now know for sure about the outcome of the coming presidential election is that we will get a winner who sucks--worse or worser.

[iolaire]

We are now in a battle between the makers and the takers, and the takers (by sheer force of number) will eventually win.

The simplified view is that Democrats want to transfer wealth from the makers to the takers, and the Republicans want to let the makers keep it.  I know it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is the essence of the basic difference between the two and why people on the doll vote overwhelmingly "D".

The FSA (Free Stuff Army) has an endless supply of recruits.

My view on this is 100% different.  I live in the educated part of Virginia (i.e. high income part), we (Northern Virginia) constantly vote in democrats as compared to the other parts of Virginia which is lower educated and lower income. 

At the state level this plays out with "red" i.e. conservative states, receiving more federal money (aide) than other states.
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-more-dependent-on-federal-government-2015-7

Republicans are less educated:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

We see that playing out in Trump supporters, "The single best predictor of Trump support in the GOP primary is the absence of a college degree"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/

[MooseMom]

kickingandscreaming, my apologies.  I used "you" in the general sense; I did not mean "you" personally!  Thank you for your sustained and continuing participation in the democratic process!!!  I wish there were more voters like you!  I would say to any voter who is disappointed by the eventual choice of nominee to go to the polls on Election Day and vote for whichever candidate for Congress fits their ideals.  I have a concern that all of these new voters we keep hearing about haven't done their homework on the other elections in their district/state.

There is nothing in your post with which I disagree.  But I am sure you'd agree that there seems to be varying definitions of "good government".  I am just hoping for effective government.

[MooseMom]

We are now in a battle between the makers and the takers, and the takers (by sheer force of number) will eventually win.

The simplified view is that Democrats want to transfer wealth from the makers to the takers, and the Republicans want to let the makers keep it.  I know it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is the essence of the basic difference between the two and why people on the doll vote overwhelmingly "D".

The FSA (Free Stuff Army) has an endless supply of recruits.

The problem is that the makers are creating more takers.

If, say, Walmart (a "maker") paid a decent living wage to its employees, then those employees wouldn't have to apply for any kind of benefits (paid for by your taxes and mine) and so wouldn't become "takers".  Walmart, in this way, is shifting their costs onto you and me.

If corporations ("makers) didn't outsource jobs in order to cut costs, then those jobs would be filled by Americans, thereby keeping them from having to claim unemployment benefits (again, paid for by you and me) and thus becoming "takers".

People on the dole don't overwhelming vote D.  Look at the Old Confederate southern states.  These states get more money from the Federal Government (again, from you and me) than they pay, but they are the reddest of Red states.  So, you are incorrect in this regard.

[kickingandscreaming]

We are now in a battle between the makers and the takers, and the takers (by sheer force of number) will eventually win.

Not to mention that ALL of us on this forum are "takers" in the sense that we are still alive by the noblesse of Medicare. Medicare is often spoken of with disdain by republicans and libertarian as "entitlements," as if that's a bad thing.  So isn't it just a bit hypocritical to point the finger at them, the takers?  And to whine about the redistribution of wealth?  If there's any redistribution of wealth going on in this country, it is flowing from the poor and the middle class upward to those who don't need it.  If it continues, there will come a time when the people go out in the streets with pitchforks. 

[Michael Murphy]

I would like to point out that I have coll cited un employment for about 3 years and are currently receiving Social Security Disability by your reasoning that makes me a taker.  But I  paid my taxes for 42 years while working. To receive these takings one has had to work long enough to be eligible for them.  Do I feel guilty NO I don't.After 42 years I figure I earned them. Remember the people who get these benefits must work a certain amount to be eligible. In addition the more you work the more you pay and more re money is given to you when you are eligible.  Referring to them as making me a taker I find offensive.

[iolaire]

Remember the people who get these benefits must work a certain amount to be eligible. In addition the more you work the more you pay and more re money is given to you when you are eligible.  Referring to them as making me a taker I find offensive.

I believe everyone has access to social security disability (good) but your benefits are much higher due to your work history.  I seriously worry for people that go on disability young because it means they are locking in a poverty level wage for their entire life. With dialysis granting disability it's easy to look at it as a life and people might take that route when they could finish their education and work around dialysis well earning higher disability payments by the time they truly can not work.  (Obviously not everyone can work on dialysis.)

[iolaire]

  If there's any redistribution of wealth going on in this country, it is flowing from the poor and the middle class upward to those who don't need it.

I agree.

I also understand the extremely high standard of living we have here in the US and attribute my ability to be successful to the system we have. I personally do not want anyone to experience the poverty found around the world. I see huge benefits to using my taxes to prop up society.  I appreciate things like not having to hire guards to protect my home from desperate people.

[hatedialysis2]

We are now in a battle between the makers and the takers, and the takers (by sheer force of number) will eventually win.

The simplified view is that Democrats want to transfer wealth from the makers to the takers, and the Republicans want to let the makers keep it.  I know it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is the essence of the basic difference between the two and why people on the doll vote overwhelmingly "D".

The FSA (Free Stuff Army) has an endless supply of recruits.

who are the real takers?   The middle class pays most of the taxes while big corporations  like Merck pay 0% and even worse NEGATIVE tax rates!    see the article below

The biggest example during the second quarter is drugmaking giant Merck. The company had a negative effective tax rate during the second quarter of 7.5%, meaning it actually got a net tax credit. That's despite the fact that income before taxes at Merck soared 52% to $1.9 billion during the quarter."
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/13/20-big-profitable-us-companies-paid-no-taxes.html

so before calling folks like single moms "takers"  for  working two jobs and still having no choice but to use food stamps, maybe you should be calling out the greedy corporations for not paying their share of taxes ! and  who did the government bailout in 2008?    the families who lost their home for no fault of their own or the too big to fail ?  If you are a middle class 33% of the earnings go to Uncle Sam.  But what do we get for it?  In places like Ireland you get full medical for free.   dialysis  Free!     college is free        ITs a kind just society!  no one goes around labeling folks who are on assistance  "takers" 

[Michael Murphy]

One of the things most often done wrong by Social Security is that for the young (I think it's under 22) the disability should be calculated on parents record.

[Simon Dog]

who are the real takers?   The middle class pays most of the taxes while big corporations  like Merck pay 0% and even worse NEGATIVE tax rates!    see the article below

I'll spell it out for you: EBT.

the families who lost their home for no fault of their own or the too big to fail ?

People lost their homes because the housing market crashed and no longer had the motivation to pay the mortgage.   A friend went bankrupt; rented for a year; then bought a new house with his "underwateredness" wiped out.   Even the "too big to fail" banks honored mortgage terms - if you paid as agreed, no forclosure.

so before calling folks like single moms "takers"

If you take more in services/govt money than you pay you are a taker.  If you pay more than you take, you are a maker.   This is not a value judgement, just a mathematical reality.

As to Merck - I wonder what the net effect is after the income tax is paid by all their employees, and capital gains taxes paid by anyone who sells their stock at a profit.

[kristina]

I don't care if some voters are in a hump because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted and so decided to pout and not vote.  The only way to guard against further disappointment is to vote in every election, particularly the local ones.  If you do not, I don't want to hear from you.

Thank you for saying it MooseMom!
Kristina.

[Michael Murphy]

If you don't vote don't complain!