New Hampshire primary 2016

[SGOS]

There's a cloud of fake scandals around Hillary, which is perpetuated by the GOP and Fox News. Come on, who else is still taking about Benghazi and the emails but Fox News and their ilk? The GOP fears a Clinton nomination as they have made the sober calculations that she can really win. Sanders is benefiting from those fake scandal, but considering that the presidential election boils down to a few swing states,  the GOP has a much greater chance of winning against Sanders. Just remember that had Gore won his home state of Tennessee, he would have won in 2000. Sometimes that's all it takes, one state to win it all. Sanders will do poorly in the swing states, he's too far to the left, and as I said previously, moving to the center on his part will make him lose his authenticity. Chances are he will stick to his proposals as such, and most Americans won't buy into it, just because it has the label "socialism" attached to it - though Medicare is already a socialist program, but don't tell them that.

I agree that much of Clinton's scandal is probably fake.  I only brought that up as a way saying something positive about Hillary's oratorical skill.  Unless Clinton gets her ass off the fence and clearly distinguishes herself from the opposition, I see little reason to support either of the two major parties.  The so called "strategic" voting scenario doesn't work for me because there is nothing in it that improves over what we have now, a slow drift to the right.  I'm not interested in perpetuating that.

[TomFoolery]

Chances are he will stick to his proposals as such, and most Americans won't buy into it, just because it has the label "socialism" attached to it - though Medicare is already a socialist program, but don't tell them that.

The biggest hatred I've seen of Bernie's proposals centers around free college tuition. People freak the fuck out about it and yell about how nothing in this life is free and students should join the military or get a job if they don't want to pay for college.

Well, the hair-splitting about "no free lunch" aside, but correct me if I'm wrong, but this country already provides a "free" education to Americans from grades K-12, does it not? Sure, it's a cost borne by the taxpayers, but we don't charge the students for it. At some point, we realized we were better off paying some money to have a population that could read, write and do math in at least a functional way. But add an additional four years of schooling to that, and it becomes... Impossible! Socialist! We think school up to grade 12 is a right and even mandatory if you're under age 18. After that, fuck you apparently.

People assume if we make an undergraduate degree free or low-cost, colleges will go bankrupt. I doubt it. A lot of their rising costs are administrative or related to extracurricular endeavors. People assume the quality of education will go down. Maybe, but considering most of my classes are already taught by TAs or part-time professors struggling to make ends meet, I doubt it will be significant. People assume the government can do nothing to check the soaring costs of college: they can. They can withhold grants and other funding, and colleges would probably get in check REALLY fast. If the government demanded schools charge tuition at a certain rate or else lose money from federal loans, they would quickly find a way. Colleges have no incentive to do this, and neither does the government really. The problem is the government makes money off of giving students low-interest loans. It isn't much, but the sheer volume adds up even if a decent percentage end up defaulting on those loans, and that's debt that never goes away. So it actually benefits the government (to a point) for college to cost more.

[josephpalazzo]

I agree that much of Clinton's scandal is probably fake.  I only brought that up as a way saying something positive about Hillary's oratorical skill.  Unless Clinton gets her ass off the fence and clearly distinguishes herself from the opposition, I see little reason to support either of the two major parties.  The so called "strategic" voting scenario doesn't work for me because there is nothing in it that improves over what we have now, a slow drift to the right.  I'm not interested in perpetuating that.

I agree with that particular discomfort of the slow drift to the right - I would qualify it with more than just a slow drift, the whole spectrum has shifted so that the center in the US is really center right in most other countries. And that shift took place because the people are already there. But politics is all about comprise, otherwise the country becomes ungovernable. Anyway, for me, the big catch is the coming nominations to SCOTUS. A Republican in the oval office means SCOTUS will be Republican-dominated for the next 30 years or so. So pitted against that, a vote for Sanders is not worth the risk of losing the big picture. His dreams might be realized one day, but this election  is not the right time for him. Though I give him credit for the enthusiasm he brings along.

[josephpalazzo]

The biggest hatred I've seen of Bernie's proposals centers around free college tuition. People freak the fuck out about it and yell about how nothing in this life is free and students should join the military or get a job if they don't want to pay for college.

Well, the hair-splitting about "no free lunch" aside, but correct me if I'm wrong, but this country already provides a "free" education to Americans from grades K-12, does it not? Sure, it's a cost borne by the taxpayers, but we don't charge the students for it. At some point, we realized we were better off paying some money to have a population that could read, write and do math in at least a functional way. But add an additional four years of schooling to that, and it becomes... Impossible! Socialist! We think school up to grade 12 is a right and even mandatory if you're under age 18. After that, fuck you apparently.

People assume if we make an undergraduate degree free or low-cost, colleges will go bankrupt. I doubt it. A lot of their rising costs are administrative or related to extracurricular endeavors. People assume the quality of education will go down. Maybe, but considering most of my classes are already taught by TAs or part-time professors struggling to make ends meet, I doubt it will be significant. People assume the government can do nothing to check the soaring costs of college: they can. They can withhold grants and other funding, and colleges would probably get in check REALLY fast. If the government demanded schools charge tuition at a certain rate or else lose money from federal loans, they would quickly find a way. Colleges have no incentive to do this, and neither does the government really. The problem is the government makes money off of giving students low-interest loans. It isn't much, but the sheer volume adds up even if a decent percentage end up defaulting on those loans, and that's debt that never goes away. So it actually benefits the government (to a point) for college to cost more.

The problem with free education, post high school as you are suggesting, is that it will be a cost to the government that would require an increase in taxes. In Europe that is acceptable - there, people are willing to pay high taxes. But in the US, any politician running on increasing taxes would be dead right at the start line. The same reason why Sanders' proposal of a universal health care would never take off - people see that as more taxes. more government intrusion in their private lives, and so it's a no go.

[gentle_dissident]

the center in the US is really center right in most other countries. And that shift took place because the people are already there

I wonder if the people were coaxed into a slave mentality. There's a lot of power to be had from enslaving a nation.

[stromboli]

I agree with that particular discomfort of the slow drift to the right - I would qualify it with more than just a slow drift, the whole spectrum has shifted so that the center in the US is really center right in most other countries. And that shift took place because the people are already there. But politics is all about comprise, otherwise the country becomes ungovernable. Anyway, for me, the big catch is the coming nominations to SCOTUS. A Republican in the oval office means SCOTUS will be Republican-dominated for the next 30 years or so. So pitted against that, a vote for Sanders is not worth the risk of losing the big picture. His dreams might be realized one day, but this election  is not the right time for him. Though I give him credit for the enthusiasm he brings along.

Hate to say it but I tend to agree. I don't like Hillary all that much; if I had my candidate of choice it would be Al Gore, but he isn't running. Bernie as president is a fine  idea, but I don't think we are there yet. Hillary has a lot of baggage and one real big bag named Bill. I thought he was a pretty good president, but there was too much scandal during his presidency. But if she is what we have, she gets my vote.

[SGOS]

I wonder if Hillary is really a better choice as the nominee?  Is the GOP all that sure about beating Sanders while fearing Clinton?  Hillary's cloud of scandal may be fake, but it is still a cloud carefully crafted by the GOP, which may have successfully cultivated her into a beatable opponent over the years.  Yeah, she's got baggage, and it's a lot of baggage.   And the Email ruckus is still gaining strength to add to the cloud. 

Many in the forum have advocated to vote your choice in the Primaries, but fall in line and vote the lesser of two evils during the general election.  What I'm starting to hear now makes me question the sincerity of "vote your choice."  We seem to be playing an iffy strategy game perhaps a bit prematurely, trying to set up Clinton as a nominee out of the starting gate, and doing so on assumptions that she's totally viable, although not necessarily desirable.  I guess I'm not convinced she's so easily viable.  In addition, a lot of what I'm hearing about planning your vote strikes me as contradictory, which is understandable, because it's a compilation of opinions coming from separate sources.

[gentle_dissident]

I don't like Hillary all that much

If it's Hillary VS Trump, I'll vote for Trump. I'm a left wing entertainer too.

[josephpalazzo]

If it's Hillary VS Trump, I'll vote for Trump. I'm a left wing entertainer too.

Underneath the sheep clothes, Trump is a Democrat. So you'll be voting closer to your heart than you think... :-)

[gentle_dissident]

Underneath the sheep clothes, Trump is a Democrat. So you'll be voting closer to your heart than you think... :-)

Oh, you misunderstood...

I'm a left wing entertainer too.

I meant that I'm like Trump in that way. Poor wording on my part.

[TomFoolery]

The problem with free education, post high school as you are suggesting, is that it will be a cost to the government that would require an increase in taxes. In Europe that is acceptable - there, people are willing to pay high taxes. But in the US, any politician running on increasing taxes would be dead right at the start line. The same reason why Sanders' proposal of a universal health care would never take off - people see that as more taxes. more government intrusion in their private lives, and so it's a no go.

But Sanders' plan is to actually just require corporations to pay the taxes they're already supposed to be paying: taxes they should have been paying since the 1980s. The increase in taxes to private citizens, even top earners, would be pretty negligible.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

But Sanders' plan is to actually just require corporations to pay the taxes they're already supposed to be paying: taxes they should have been paying since the 1980s. The increase in taxes to private citizens, even top earners, would be pretty negligible.

I for one would be glad to pay more taxes if it meant I could be assured that a sudden medical problem won't bankrupt me. Despite the ACA my insurance can still say " lol no" whenever I have to go to the doctor.
I'd also pay more taxes if I can be assured that a bridge won't just collapse on me. Our infrastructure is rotting before our eyes, and we're letting it.

[Hydra009]

The problem with free education, post high school as you are suggesting, is that it will be a cost to the government that would require an increase in taxes. In Europe that is acceptable - there, people are willing to pay high taxes. But in the US, any politician running on increasing taxes would be dead right at the start line. The same reason why Sanders' proposal of a universal health care would never take off - people see that as more taxes. more government intrusion in their private lives, and so it's a no go.

Basically, we want the same benefits other industrial countries enjoy with none of the drawbacks.  Little wonder why we don't get our act together as a country.

[josephpalazzo]

But Sanders' plan is to actually just require corporations to pay the taxes they're already supposed to be paying: taxes they should have been paying since the 1980s. The increase in taxes to private citizens, even top earners, would be pretty negligible.

That would be perceived as an increase in taxes. It's that same reason the GOP bulks at reforming the tax code - eliminating any tax loop would be a tax increase, any strict application of the present tax code is an increase in taxes, therefore no reform. This has been going on for at least 20 years, with no chance of ever getting done.

I for one would be glad to pay more taxes if it meant I could be assured that a sudden medical problem won't bankrupt me. Despite the ACA my insurance can still say " lol no" whenever I have to go to the doctor.
I'd also pay more taxes if I can be assured that a bridge won't just collapse on me. Our infrastructure is rotting before our eyes, and we're letting it.

It happens you're in a very small minority. Americans see a tax increase like some see a plague coming on. The last incident related to tax increase was with Bush father who in 1988 sworn there would be no tax increase. But it happened on his watch, and in 1992 was defeated by Clinton, who at that time was an unknown. Clinton did increase taxes but had to compromise with heavy cuts in social welfare, reducing regulations which among others nixed the Glassâ€"Steagall Banking Act, and cut into other expenses.

Basically, we want the same benefits other industrial countries enjoy with none of the drawbacks.  Little wonder why we don't get our act together as a country.

Americans believe in rugged individualism. Government assistance is considered as an albatross around your neck - why the GOP gets mileage with blue color workers, when in reality, the Democratic Party is a lot more favorable to their interests.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

A message that the Democrats should beat home every day, but don't is simple.  Don't like social security?  You think it's a ponzi scheme and going broke the way the rubes portray it? Fine! DON'T ACCEPT IT when you reach retirement age.  When you get old enough for Medicare DON'T ACCEPT IT!  DEMAND that you have to pay full price every time you have to go to the doctor..
Whenever I hear anyone complain about social security and I know that it's the only reason they're not in the poor house I tell them to return every penny to the feds or otherwise just shut the fuck up and stop being a hypocrite. I live in South Carolina in a neighborhood full of older people who go on and on about how rotten social security is and not a one will admit that if not for social security they would all be homeless old fuckers..