Political Roundtable Part XVI

[Zonkerbl]

The Dems need to run someone exciting who can get them riled up, like Obama did. They must never consider running someone with HRC's, or Al Gore's, or Mike Dukakis' personality again. Ever.

[cammac]

I've been thinking about the 2020 presidential race and the potential Dem nominee.

Imo, the nominee needs to be the person who is best equipped to rebuild/replicate the "Obama coalition (Women, millenials, minorities etc)

If you're a Democrat you can't win the presidency without those groups coming out in overwhelming force.

That's the main lesson of 2016 imo.

HRC's perceived "voting base" didn't turn out in sufficient numbers.

And before someone brings up the need to woo Trump voters, I agree...with a caveat.

I'll woo them to an extent but at this point if you're still a true believer in Trump it's probably a waste of time devoting lots of resources.

Let's be honest here: This country is changing demographically and for a certain segment of Trump voters (those are the ones I think of as "deplorable") there's nothing the democratic party can do for them because they view the party as the refuge of gays, "abortionists", brown people etc. Those are the "DEPLORABLES HRC was referring to...and ya know what? She was right.

So with all that being said, the primary objective is to turn out the democratic base and win just enough independents.

THAT'S what the nominee needs to be capable of doing.

You are right on and every country has them including Canada I'm sure 15% to 20% of Canadians would fall into the same basket. What the USA needs is a dynamic young leader like Trudeau is in Canada. I detested his father but right now Justin is the type of leader Canada needs. Do I agree with all his policies absolutely not in that I wish he would balance the budget even though I know that some of that will come out of my pocket and Canadians like me. But on social issues I give him credit plus he is a stark reminder in North America to the buffoon leading our brother south of the border.

The Republican Cabinet is a conglomerate of old rich "White Guys" with few women and lacking in diversity and compassion. The Trudeau Cabinet is 1/2 women with a mixture of all races and religions. ( Canadian Cabinets are made up of elected representative in Parliament ). The ideal Democratic Candidate would be Michele Obama even though I know she would never run.

[Pointgod]

I've been thinking about the 2020 presidential race and the potential Dem nominee.

Imo, the nominee needs to be the person who is best equipped to rebuild/replicate the "Obama coalition (Women, millenials, minorities etc)

If you're a Democrat you can't win the presidency without those groups coming out in overwhelming force.

That's the main lesson of 2016 imo.

HRC's perceived "voting base" didn't turn out in sufficient numbers.

And before someone brings up the need to woo Trump voters, I agree...with a caveat.

I'll woo them to an extent but at this point if you're still a true believer in Trump it's probably a waste of time devoting lots of resources.

Let's be honest here: This country is changing demographically and for a certain segment of Trump voters (those are the ones I think of as "deplorable") there's nothing the democratic party can do for them because they view the party as the refuge of gays, "abortionists", brown people etc. Those are the "DEPLORABLES HRC was referring to...and ya know what? She was right.

So with all that being said, the primary objective is to turn out the democratic base and win just enough independents.

THAT'S what the nominee needs to be capable of doing.

I’m a novice when it comes to American politics so I don’t know how effective my opinion will be but I think that Democrats need to move away from running personalities and make the platform the focus. The enthusiasm should come from the party, not the person running. Clintons(Bill) and Obamas don’t come around very often and running a personality will just provide an opportunity for the right wing propaganda news to attack the person.

I agree that Democrats increasing turnout should cement a victory for Democrats until the cows come home so that means they need to reinforce their core values. I’d honestly give up on trying to convert Trump voters. As you can see with examples from this very thread these people are so far gone that it’s better to focus energizing the base which is much larger. By building a strong economic platform Democrats can appeal to some Trump voters but not at the expense of their base (women and minorities).

The last thing I’d say is that Trump is an example of how the cult of personality is destroying a party. The Republican Party is now the party of Trump/Bannon/Moore and time will determine how much damage it has done. On the other side you can see how the Bernie cult of personality hurt Democrats in 2016 and how leaning too heavily on Obama hurt the Democrats down the ballot over the years. Build a team of stars that complement each other like Golden State opposed to the Cavs model with one superstar expected to do everything.

[TGW]

Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind. I would also still vote for Bernie Sanders if he ran. I think a strong progressive with great ideas would woo many voters who sat home the last election.

[dckingsfan]

Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind. I would also still vote for Bernie Sanders if he ran. I think a strong progressive with great ideas would woo many voters who sat home the last election.

I think he is a populist as well - guess I would vote for neither Bernie or Trump...

[cammac]

The Republican Party is a equal ethnic disenfranchisement as long as you are likely to vote Democratic!
Usually they have targeted minorities but now certain whites are not immune especially the young being college educated.
"In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes (47.6 percent to 47.2 percent), and incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte lost to Democrat and former New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan by fewer than 1,000 votes (48 percent to 47.9 percent). Democrats won both of New Hampshire’s seats in the House of Representatives, too. At the federal level, New Hampshire is entirely blue."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-trumps-america-even-white-people-can-face-poll-taxes-if-they-lean-liberal

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think he is a populist as well - guess I would vote for neither Bernie or Trump...

See, I think there is actually a symbiotic relationship between fiscal conservatives (which you clearly are) and social liberals/progressives (which Sanders clearly is, at least on health care). They need one another. I think a lot of the issues America is currently facing is due to the fact that those two factions have been driven so far apart. Fiscal conservatives often miss the hidden long-term costs of allowing someone else/the market to come up with all the ideas and simply see the immediate fiscal reality and opt for the cheapest ideas. Social liberals/progressives generally don't see the actual ramifications of how they're proposing to implement their plan, coming up with otherworldly, unworkable, and unreasonably expensive ideas that just don't fit. I really believe it's the responsibility of fiscal conservatives to actually transform ideas borne of the likes of Bernie Sanders (well, he's more rehashing ideas of others, but you get the idea) into something actually workable rather than dismissing them as entirely unworkable and accepting more of the same ongoing issues. The line of thinking allows for balances of power to tilt in ridiculous directions, which allows situations like the one we see at present to actually happen.

[FAH1223]

I've been thinking about the 2020 presidential race and the potential Dem nominee.

Imo, the nominee needs to be the person who is best equipped to rebuild/replicate the "Obama coalition (Women, millenials, minorities etc)

If you're a Democrat you can't win the presidency without those groups coming out in overwhelming force.

That's the main lesson of 2016 imo.

HRC's perceived "voting base" didn't turn out in sufficient numbers.

And before someone brings up the need to woo Trump voters, I agree...with a caveat.

I'll woo them to an extent but at this point if you're still a true believer in Trump it's probably a waste of time devoting lots of resources.

Let's be honest here: This country is changing demographically and for a certain segment of Trump voters (those are the ones I think of as "deplorable") there's nothing the democratic party can do for them because they view the party as the refuge of gays, "abortionists", brown people etc. Those are the "DEPLORABLES HRC was referring to...and ya know what? She was right.

So with all that being said, the primary objective is to turn out the democratic base and win just enough independents.

THAT'S what the nominee needs to be capable of doing.

I’m a novice when it comes to American politics so I don’t know how effective my opinion will be but I think that Democrats need to move away from running personalities and make the platform the focus. The enthusiasm should come from the party, not the person running. Clintons(Bill) and Obamas don’t come around very often and running a personality will just provide an opportunity for the right wing propaganda news to attack the person.

I agree that Democrats increasing turnout should cement a victory for Democrats until the cows come home so that means they need to reinforce their core values. I’d honestly give up on trying to convert Trump voters. As you can see with examples from this very thread these people are so far gone that it’s better to focus energizing the base which is much larger. By building a strong economic platform Democrats can appeal to some Trump voters but not at the expense of their base (women and minorities).

The last thing I’d say is that Trump is an example of how the cult of personality is destroying a party. The Republican Party is now the party of Trump/Bannon/Moore and time will determine how much damage it has done. On the other side you can see how the Bernie cult of personality hurt Democrats in 2016 and how leaning too heavily on Obama hurt the Democrats down the ballot over the years. Build a team of stars that complement each other like Golden State opposed to the Cavs model with one superstar expected to do everything.

Yup. Personalities can't be relied upon to turn out voters. You need to give voters a reason to vote for you. And you need to run on things most of the American people agree on.

The Democrats have a great opportunity in front of them. But the DNC has been starved for 8-9 years with terrible chairs and management. Obama may have been POTUS but he put the party in the hands of people blowing money away on consultants and other vendors.

The Democrats unfortunately don't want to piss off corporate America too much for fear of losing money. That wing of the party, the corporatist and financial sector loyalists, have seen their influence wane in the past few years after the financial crisis. The grassroots and the base has been betrayed by a lot of the policies enacted which is why we saw Occupy and why we've seen a lot of progressive action independent of the Democrats.

Left-leaning independents are growing.

[dckingsfan]

See, I think there is actually a symbiotic relationship between fiscal conservatives (which you clearly are) and social liberals/progressives (which Sanders clearly is, at least on health care).

I don’t think there should be a disconnect between being a progressive and a fiscal conservative. I would think a progressive would want sustainable government.

They need one another. I think a lot of the issues America is currently facing is due to the fact that those two factions have been driven so far apart. Fiscal conservatives often miss the hidden long-term costs of allowing someone else/the market to come up with all the ideas and simply see the immediate fiscal reality and opt for the cheapest ideas.

I would disagree with this statement. Fiscal conservatives look at the long-term costs of providing and not providing services from the government.

Social liberals/progressives generally don't see the actual ramifications of how they're proposing to implement their plan, coming up with otherworldly, unworkable, and unreasonably expensive ideas that just don't fit.

But don’t you think that is a bit irresponsible and way toward the populist side?

I really believe it's the responsibility of fiscal conservatives to actually transform ideas borne of the likes of Bernie Sanders (well, he's more rehashing ideas of others, but you get the idea) into something actually workable rather than dismissing them as entirely unworkable and accepting more of the same ongoing issues.

Do you see the likes of Bernie Sanders ever listening to fiscal conservatives? I would say even more so now that the Rs have completely blown the budget…

The line of thinking allows for balances of power to tilt in ridiculous directions, which allows situations like the one we see at present to actually happen.

True. I think that is the single biggest problem that the Ds have had and still have. They have been positioned and the party of irrational spending (we know from this cycle (and previous cycles)) that it is actually both parties.
Until the Ds become the party of sustainable government – I think we will continue to see the back and forth of power.

[dckingsfan]

The last thing I’d say is that Trump is an example of how the cult of personality is destroying a party. The Republican Party is now the party of Trump/Bannon/Moore and time will determine how much damage it has done. On the other side you can see how the Bernie cult of personality hurt Democrats in 2016 and how leaning too heavily on Obama hurt the Democrats down the ballot over the years. Build a team of stars that complement each other like Golden State opposed to the Cavs model with one superstar expected to do everything.

This - just as the Ds looked like the party of the Clintons. This will be a very deep hole for the Rs to dig out of...

[cammac]

I think he is a populist as well - guess I would vote for neither Bernie or Trump...

See, I think there is actually a symbiotic relationship between fiscal conservatives (which you clearly are) and social liberals/progressives (which Sanders clearly is, at least on health care). They need one another. I think a lot of the issues America is currently facing is due to the fact that those two factions have been driven so far apart. Fiscal conservatives often miss the hidden long-term costs of allowing someone else/the market to come up with all the ideas and simply see the immediate fiscal reality and opt for the cheapest ideas. Social liberals/progressives generally don't see the actual ramifications of how they're proposing to implement their plan, coming up with otherworldly, unworkable, and unreasonably expensive ideas that just don't fit. I really believe it's the responsibility of fiscal conservatives to actually transform ideas borne of the likes of Bernie Sanders (well, he's more rehashing ideas of others, but you get the idea) into something actually workable rather than dismissing them as entirely unworkable and accepting more of the same ongoing issues. The line of thinking allows for balances of power to tilt in ridiculous directions, which allows situations like the one we see at present to actually happen.

Excellent post in that rational people realize that both are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. While I'm a proponent of universal healthcare a rational person must reject Bernie's proposals as being fiscally reckless. While the Trump solution is to pander to the 1% and to hell with the devastation it will cause.

Obamacare is flawed and DCK has pointed out correctly that certain drivers must be corrected but would those ever happen with a Trump lead Republican Party? ( answer is obvious ) Obamacare was actually a Republican Plan implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. Obama hoped introducing it would get bipartisan support but his optimism was grossly ignored in tribalism. DCK and I agree that the USA government has too many overlaps in healthcare its Medicare, Medicate, VA and the private sector. DCK also is cognoscente that cost drivers need to be eliminate excessive drug costs, outrageous legal settlements, hospital costs and consistent doctors fees. I would also stress a need for Federal over site on services provided under a plan but the plan to be administered at a state level with federal equalization funds for have not states.This wouldn't eliminate the private sector which could and should provide additional coverage that a universal system doesn't provide.

Where b. Sanders deserves credit is bringing some understanding that the other advanced economies has all embraced universal healthcare at lower costs and with better outcomes.

[I_Like_Dirt]

They need one another. I think a lot of the issues America is currently facing is due to the fact that those two factions have been driven so far apart. Fiscal conservatives often miss the hidden long-term costs of allowing someone else/the market to come up with all the ideas and simply see the immediate fiscal reality and opt for the cheapest ideas.

I would disagree with this statement. Fiscal conservatives look at the long-term costs of providing and not providing services from the government.

...

Social liberals/progressives generally don't see the actual ramifications of how they're proposing to implement their plan, coming up with otherworldly, unworkable, and unreasonably expensive ideas that just don't fit.

But don’t you think that is a bit irresponsible and way toward the populist side?

The first bit, in theory, I'd agree, but given that we have the advantage of hindsight, I have to stand by my original statement. The long term costs and social ramifications simply aren't nearly as much of a factor as they should be in the equation.

As for that second bit, irresponsible? Maybe. Populist? How is it any more populist than the idea of shrinking government, cutting taxes, etc.? Populist is such a moving target that I don't necessarily find it useful here. Irresponsible. It depends on how you look at it. Macro thinking matters, and in a lot of cases, the logic holds on the macro level but is falling apart on the micro level, which is where fiscal conservatives are desperately needed to make these kinds of ideas work. You suggested Bernie Sanders wouldn't listen to fiscal conservatives, and he might not, but it's a two way street. Poised with a setup to eliminate cost drivers, solve revenue issues (I know you disagree with this, but it's true nonetheless), and create a single payer system all in one fell swoop, I think he'd listen, but even if he didn't, why does it matter? There are some good overarching ideas there that can absolutely be made work with or without him - and again, they really aren't his ideas, for the most part, just the ideas he's trying to promote. It's why both sides need to be brought together, honestly.

As for your suggestion of the Ds becoming the party of sustainable government, that's largely up to the fiscal conservatives. Right now, on average, those fiscal conservatives are lining themselves up with the Republicans or simply giving up on the entire thing. There really isn't any evidence to suggest that the Republicans are more in it for sustainable government than the Democrats, but it is what it is. There are workable ideas there within the Democratic Party that just aren't there in the Republican Party, provided some polishing. Polishing is the hard part, though, and it's much easier to polish slashing government, which is where the Republicans have often won that battle. I just hope it isn't too late. The taxes are a major issue but could theoretically be overturned. The judicial appointments are another issue, though.

[TGW]

Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind. I would also still vote for Bernie Sanders if he ran. I think a strong progressive with great ideas would woo many voters who sat home the last election.

I think he is a populist as well - guess I would vote for neither Bernie or Trump...

Who's your ideal presidential candidate?

[TGW]

There are no fiscal conservatives in existence anymore. Republicans pretend like they are the responsible budgetary party, but they are far from. Republicans want to de-fund social programs, but bloat our military industrial complex with unlimited funds. They give subsidies to corporations and allow loopholes in the tax code for the richest Americans. That's not fiscal conservatism...that's crony conservatism.

If an actual conservative Republican came out with the balls to actually take on special interest groups, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex, while fixing our broken justice system (i.e. a tea partier without the racist undertone), then I would consider that candidate. Someone like a Rand Paul, except less cooky.

[stilldropin20]

.

I guess when you start posting nine or ten in a row, one of them is bound to reference Minimalism, with a sly reference to basketball and a subtle critique of the Wizards continual malaise.

I think Pine used to have a standard wherein three posts in a row was the equivalent of quoting yourself, either one indicative of a blog diary than a message board. You have a blog STD?

never critiqued the wizards and i cant find the delete button.

keep in mind, i do get asked questions and often the same question over and over. my one and 2 liners aren't enough. they want more. they pretend they dont. but they do. they dig it man.

anyhow, blog did you say? should i really start a blog? hmmm?

in terms of a candidate for 2020. Honestly, i dont think Obama himself could beat Trump. Impeachment is D's only path to victory in 2020 and thats why they wont let up. CNN is at 98% negative coverage. think about that. with the economy booming CNN wont talk about. or if they briefly mention it they spin it in a negative light for trump.

One of the points, I keep making over and over in this thread is that for D's have almost no chance to win in 2020.

You wont have a chance until 2024 and even then Ivanka might run, and she's no kitty kat, D's need to come back to jesus/God/Allah. not literally(but that might not hurt). but they need to do a complete 180 on many policy and platform ideologies. And you need a good candidate who can debate with trump. As of right now in 2020 , Trump would devour Obama himself in a debate. In that theoretical debate all trump would need to keep coing back to is the economy, jobs, GDP, stock market, foriegn policy, trade renegotiations. and there is nothing Obama could say. Nothing.


I dont think you guys fully acknowledge how bad the economy was during the Obama era and how quickly trump turned it around. virtually on a message alone. Optimism. And a plan delivered with a confidence that you know will work. Bullet points. Like Trump and Bernie had. But also a reasonable means to execute.

Obama was a great speaker. impeccable almost. But his message was always kind of a downer. always doom and gloom about the USA in general. Doom and gloom about the economy. Doom and gloom about the climate. Doom and gloom about the military, the american worker, the history of america. everything. he literally went on a 4 year apology tour during his first term as if we should apologize for dominating the globe militarily and financially. or for spreading democracy.

1. Have a plan. stop running almost solely on various identity politics. Its so 1990's. It's tired. Especially when you throw in the "we are better human beings." when in fact you're not better human beings and not by a long shot. Not in politics. not in hollywood, not in the business world and not out in the streets. And everyone on this board knows it. im not saying libs are worse, but there is a lot of evidence that libs are at least more deviant. and liberal cities are far more violent as well as far more littered with petty crime. so stop hiding from this. Own it! then people will begin to at least listen to it. If libs keep pointing the finger on fundamental differences of opinion like pro-choice vs life(especially late term) its just a losing proposition. then gender identity where 15 year old boys can shower with the girls. Really? I mean I'm fine with it. I really am. and I'm pro-choice up to a point. But its silly to make conservatives agree to this and then in fact call them bad people for not agreeing all while liberal cities are amok with crime and violence.

2. 2020 election is waist of time for D's. Impeachment is your only path to victory. And all the D's know this. That's why they have been greasing the skids for over a year and wont let it go. regularly lying to the american people through the liberal media. But I'm telling you right now, if the impeachment is not legit. if its just a witch hunt? look out! The Trump MAGA movement will become even stronger. And Ivanka will certainly win the next election with trump doing all the campaigning. No one will have any kind of chance against trump in a debate. Even If you have a "good" candidate, D's are better off stashing him or her until 2024. Trump is gonna trump in 2020 and that candidate will lose his or her luster. just Imagine it. Trump will turn every single question into a full blown manifesto on the economy, jobs, stock market, and growth, and how awful things were under Obama. And he'd be right. Better to wait for 2024...but dont get too excited then either. Nikey Haley or Ivanka Trump will be laying in wait.

3. Steal from Trump. The man is getting high grades on foreign policy even from a lot of libs. he is bringing jobs back and renegotiating trade deals, and bringing corporate money back. there is no reason why D's cant adopt a lot of his foreign policy, trade policy, and tax policy: for example on taxes. Keep everything the way it is and remove trust and foundatoin loop holes to hide wealth and bring back the death tax. That right there would be a huge win for D's and that alone would bring me back to the party.

4. these liberal social programs dont work. Own it! they are creating generations of people stuck in a viscous cycle of atrocious neglect. Creating generation upon generation of people that have lost their way. The programs were well intended but dont work. They need to be reshaped so that people are encouraged to get out of the bad neighborhood and off the entitlements and into the job market.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

They need one another. I think a lot of the issues America is currently facing is due to the fact that those two factions have been driven so far apart. Fiscal conservatives often miss the hidden long-term costs of allowing someone else/the market to come up with all the ideas and simply see the immediate fiscal reality and opt for the cheapest ideas.

I would disagree with this statement. Fiscal conservatives look at the long-term costs of providing and not providing services from the government....

Social liberals/progressives generally don't see the actual ramifications of how they're proposing to implement their plan, coming up with otherworldly, unworkable, and unreasonably expensive ideas that just don't fit.

But don’t you think that is a bit irresponsible and way toward the populist side?

The first bit, in theory, I'd agree, but given that we have the advantage of hindsight, I have to stand by my original statement. The long term costs and social ramifications simply aren't nearly as much of a factor as they should be in the equation.

As for that second bit, irresponsible? Maybe. Populist? How is it any more populist than the idea of shrinking government, cutting taxes, etc.? Populist is such a moving target that I don't necessarily find it useful here. Irresponsible. It depends on how you look at it. Macro thinking matters, and in a lot of cases, the logic holds on the macro level but is falling apart on the micro level, which is where fiscal conservatives are desperately needed to make these kinds of ideas work. You suggested Bernie Sanders wouldn't listen to fiscal conservatives, and he might not, but it's a two way street. Poised with a setup to eliminate cost drivers, solve revenue issues (I know you disagree with this, but it's true nonetheless), and create a single payer system all in one fell swoop, I think he'd listen, but even if he didn't, why does it matter? There are some good overarching ideas there that can absolutely be made work with or without him - and again, they really aren't his ideas, for the most part, just the ideas he's trying to promote. It's why both sides need to be brought together, honestly.

As for your suggestion of the Ds becoming the party of sustainable government, that's largely up to the fiscal conservatives. Right now, on average, those fiscal conservatives are lining themselves up with the Republicans or simply giving up on the entire thing. There really isn't any evidence to suggest that the Republicans are more in it for sustainable government than the Democrats, but it is what it is. There are workable ideas there within the Democratic Party that just aren't there in the Republican Party, provided some polishing. Polishing is the hard part, though, and it's much easier to polish slashing government, which is where the Republicans have often won that battle. I just hope it isn't too late. The taxes are a major issue but could theoretically be overturned. The judicial appointments are another issue, though.

Well we agree that the long-term costs and social ramifications are the keys. And neither party has kept their eye on those balls.

But Bernie's proposals, are they irresponsible - absolutely, IMO. And populist - yep (his was the message of a chicken in every pot).

BTW, why does a fiscal conservative need to be about slashing government? That is the purview of social conservatives.

I would definitely say that the Rs are not the party of the fiscal conservative - and even more so now. I would say the fiscal conservative is a person without a party right now - just my opinion.

[stilldropin20]

There are no fiscal conservatives in existence anymore. Republicans pretend like they are the responsible budgetary party, but they are far from. Republicans want to de-fund social programs, but bloat our military industrial complex with unlimited funds. They give subsidies to corporations and allow loopholes in the tax code for the richest Americans. That's not fiscal conservatism...that's crony conservatism.

If an actual conservative Republican came out with the balls to actually take on special interest groups, lobbyists, and the military industrial complex, while fixing our broken justice system (i.e. a tea partier without the racist undertone), then I would consider that candidate. Someone like a Rand Paul, except less cooky.

disagree. trump is going to balance the budget. and likely before 2020. I guarantee it. And yes at the expense of non needle moving social programs while beefing up the military (which happens to be extremely necessary right now) and allow us to negotiate peace and trade from a position of strength. Smart.

obviously I violently agree with the one flaw in the Trump platform. Tax code and loop holes. Everyone should know how i feel about that by now. Other than this Trump has the nearly a flawless platform. The man did his research before he took this job.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

these overreaching agendas are not doing the D's any favors.

D's only path to victory in 2020 is impeachment. Just own it. You already had an impeachment vote in the house on thursday that garnered 50 votes. So just own it.

D's should have come out last friday and said that we need D's to vote for Doug Jones in order to eventually impeach Donald Trump. It's clear to anyone watching that this is the actual plan. You are better off owning it. Ah but libs. so afraid of the truth. never change. always in constant spin mode. so tiring. that's why your candidates are always tired. Or doom and gloom. They dont actually believe what they say. they know its all tired spin.

[TGW]

Well we agree that the long-term costs and social ramifications are the keys. And neither party has kept their eye on those balls.

[u]But Bernie's proposals, are they irresponsible - absolutely, [/u]IMO. And populist - yep (his was the message of a chicken in every pot).

BTW, why does a fiscal conservative need to be about slashing government? That is the purview of social conservatives.

I would definitely say that the Rs are not the party of the fiscal conservative - and even more so now. I would say the fiscal conservative is a person without a party right now - just my opinion.

Now this is completely inaccurate. Bernie Sanders is absolutely not proposing anything radical at all. All of his policies are being used NOW in other countries around the world with varying degrees of success. People look at the immediate expenditures without looking at the long-term cost savings within Bernie's budget.

The United States is on track to spend 49T on healthcare over the next 10 years. Medicare 4 All would cost 32T over the next ten years, which results in a 17T savings. The rapacious middle-man healthcare insurance scam would be ended immediately. That's way more fiscally responsible than the BS plans the republicans have been spewing for the past few years (i.e. the ridiculous "competition" argument that absolutely does not work). Not only that, but by getting rid of the burden of healthcare on businesses, you spur growth in small business ownsership.

Bernie Sanders would cut military spending dramatically. Again, that is way more responsible than our current bloated and silly military budget.

He would give tax cuts to the middle class, the segment of the country that drives the economy, while raising taxes on the rich, closing loopholes in the tax code, and forcing corporations to pay their fair share, thus destroying the crony capitalist system. Again, that is way more fiscally responsible than blind tax cuts for everybody, which has proven to be disastrous (just look at the 1920's).

If anything, Bernie Sanders is the most fiscally responsible candidate in existence.