Bernie Sanders Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

[Wulfey]

Why should what Fox viewers believe make people doubt anything? This is the same demographic that has a propensity for declaring that science has a liberal bias. Many of them tend to think nearly everything is liberal, or at the very least indicative of a RINO, and use the accusation to insulate themselves from opposing world views.

The Alt-Left regularly calls Hillary a Republican. Then why does the entire Republican media/political complex never even for a second doubt her liberalism? That should cause the Alt-Left some pause. This isn't about the conservative entertainment complex sheeps who do the consuming. This is about the opinion makers, businessmen, and politicians behind it. The guys behind the conservative wurlitzer don't doubt Obama/HRC/Reid/Pelosi's commitment to liberal politics for even a second.

[Goradan]

I wonder how many will flock to the Trump camp. I know some who already have.

I feel you on that one bro. In this case I think Bernie sold out. Hillery is not one I believe to keep her promises.

[Matchles]

Hillary seems to only ever be liberal when talking to Bernie supporters,

It seems inconsistent because you are tacitly admitting that you don't actually think she Is Liberal, or not enough so to justify correcting Skroesec's misconceptions, would you say Skroe is wrong about Hillary Clinton?

No. Hillary was liberal, Hillary is liberal. You have this ridiculous view that I should try to talk someone out of supporting her because they believe she would be a different leader than I. It's stupid. Did you try talking the anti-government types out of supporting Sanders because they couldn't look past his corrupted government talk to see that he would create the largest federal government in history?

It is absolutely ridiculous that you call for me to defend the claims of every other Clinton supporter. Here is the support for MY view.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.

So if you are going to contend that her policies are diametrically opposed to Sanders you need to put up or shut up.

[Celista]

No. Hillary was liberal, Hillary is liberal. You have this ridiculous view that I should try to talk someone out of supporting her because they believe she would be a different leader than I. It's stupid. Did you try talking the anti-government types out of supporting Sanders because they couldn't look past his corrupted government talk to see that he would create the largest federal government in history?

It is absolutely ridiculous that you call for me to defend the claims of every other Clinton supporter. Here is the support for MY view.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/



So if you are going to contend that her policies are diametrically opposed to Sanders you need to put up or shut up.

Hillary was the original proponent of single-payer healthcare; that was her stance in 2008 and she has been working towards universal healthcare since her husband was in office.

Hillary is liberal by US standards, I suppose. I would not define her as a "hard core liberal", Jill Stein is a hard core liberal.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If you look at trump, he has been saying the same things since the 80s, and before you preach to me from your ivory tower how "bad" his message is, provide to me an argument that dismisses his entire message cause I have yet to find a leftist that could
Now we look like venezuela

I have yet to run into anyone that could properly explain Trump's platform, mostly because he doesn't have one, he has about 500 and picks one on any given day.

But here we go.

His tax plan couldn't fund the office supplies for Washington, much less a big idiotic wall.

Speaking of walls, not only is there an immense hurdle in terms of getting it to pass and securing the tens of billions that would be required to build it, but there's also the issue of needing to invoke eminent domain on thousands of Americans and breaking several laws including the endangered species act.

And the wall is about the only thing Trump hasn't flip flopped on AT LEAST once, most issues he's gone back and forth 3 or 4 times, so it's rather hard to rebut anything else because he's held multiple stances on everything at this point. It's why you've never found anyone who could dismiss Trump's message.

[Celista]

I feel you on that one bro. In this case I think Bernie sold out. Hillery is not one I believe to keep her promises.

I feel like he sold out, too. I know he was courted pretty heavily by the Green Party camp. I think he was encouraged to support Clinton in order to ensure Trump doesn't take office, it was a wise decision but I would have preferred that he ran third party or independent instead.

[Bollocks]

Progressive agenda? You mean the totalitarian "anything that contradicts what I say is racist hate speech" agenda?

Bernie's plan

1% pay for your useless degree
Middle class pays for your useless degree
Scrape up whatever is left to pay for your useless degree
What's that? We ran out of other people's money? Oops

Hillary's message is whatever it needs to be at that exact moment to pander to whoever is watching

If you look at trump, he has been saying the same things since the 80s, and before you preach to me from your ivory tower how "bad" his message is, provide to me an argument that dismisses his entire message cause I have yet to find a leftist that could
Now we look like venezuela

Ok lets addres this, because I'm getting fucking tired of all you fuckers.

Source for his ideas: http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

Tax plans

}

The median US income is around $51,000, most US citizens will have the bulk of their taxes levied at the tax rates of the bottom two (0% and 10%).
This is a massive drop from where it currently is, and the growth effects from the massive tax cuts would need to be enormous (Which Trump claims them to be).

Trump is suggesting that we levy tax rates way past the revenue optimal tax rate (Laffer Curve), but this is simply incorrect. As the US is way past the point in which it can lower income taxes and gain revenue instead of losing it (1) .It would be one thing if Trump claimed the tax cuts would spur the economy, but did not claim they were on the correct side of the Laffer Curve, but he did not. He insists that there can be tax cuts that are simultaneously growth-promoting and revenue-positive, but that is incorrect. The Tax Foundation finds that Trump's tax plan in specific would cost an estimated $9.5 trillion dollars over 10 years(2), and even its dynamic model suggests there would be a massive deficit remaining (I say "even" because dynamic models are notoriously imprecise and generally are incorrect, static models should be relied on).
To summarize, Trump claims that his massive tax cuts will generate so much growth that they will pay for themselves, however most economists and empirics disagree.
(1)http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...irlrss5UC27YXi
(2)http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...rumps-tax-plan

Denying Climate Change and the EPA

I'm not going to bother to cite studies for this is a proven fact go google if you want.
Instead I will focus on the effictiveness of EPA and the social costs of pollution

The best way to illustrate the social cost of pollution is an example. Imagine you live in a small agricultural town, and a few months back there was an expansion of industry in the area- a small industrial park filled with light industry. You and most of the town live just about a mile out, downstream from the industrial park. When the industrial park and the coal plant inevitably pollute the river, they're not going to be the ones paying for the costs. The murky dirty river will directly lower property value of home owners, potentially pose a threat to citizens who may use the river for various purposes via sickness and illness, or render the river unusable as a future water source for the town forcing them to extract from a more expensive area in the future.

All of these costs do not weighth privately by the factory, but socially by the taxpayer or society. The social cost of carbon is just something like this except on a global scale via climate change and air pollution (Beijing Smog(3)).
The social cost of carbon is high, some sort of government action is necessary to preserve the Earth and Trump's policies are not helping(4)
The EPA is also a major net-benefit to society, for example just look at their emissions trading program (Cap and Trade, which Trump opposes).

(3)http://www.thebeijinger.com/sites/de...g-facebook.jpg
(4)http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/eco...g_capacity.pdf
(5)https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.27.1.103


Immigration


I'll just paste this shit that I made as I cannot be bothered in writing a lengthy paragraph for this one.

I think the majority of the literature in economics is showing immigrants, including those with the lowest skills/are illegal, tend to increase wages. This is because they shift outwards demand more by providing labor/services natives lack, hence why immigrants tend to have skill sets at the top or bottom.
It is also true that immigrants have a negative effect, because by increasing the supply of labor, the may decrease labor prices overall, thus resulting for lower pay for natives. This is especially alarming, as most immigrants (including those who are illegal) tend to have low skills, and thus drag downwards the pay of similarly unskilled natives, who are arguably those most in need of greater pay.

I think though that the most recent papers tend to show that the benefits outweights the negatives.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/asset...migration3.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21123

And most economists tend to agree that low skilled immigration does have a positive effect in the economy.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...vuNnqkBeAMAfHv


As for the crime, illegal immigrants tend to commit 1/5 of crimes than natives:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/res...penBorders.pdf

And the immigration process is screwed for the US, so its not fair to say that because x did in the past y can do it right now:
http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content...lon-Reason.jpg

Now even if the wages were to drop Borjas, the most pessimistic economist here doesn't even find this effect to be greater than about 5%.
https://cmuinsider.com/2016/02/22/an...-donald-trump/

However he has been answered multiple times:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20093
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...mmigration.pdf
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publicati...7123ee58d0.pdf
http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/jeea2012.pdf

I'll thank google translation for allowing me these one.

I'm missing more; including free trade but at this point you get the idea.

EDIT: Is Jill Stein a better candidate, nope. And the libertarian guy isn't either. Go figure who's left.

- - - Updated - - -

Free trade
So I'll continue on a separate post, to continue this thing as I think its better for reading purposes.

So let me preface this with this mandatory poll that shows virtually unanimous consensus(1)

He is wrong on free trade, the benefits of free trade are not felt in creation of jobs and it doens't benefit the top 1% either. The poor and working class more than anyone see increased purchasing power from it (2)
Summary:

the authors estimate that U.S. consumers at the 10th percentile of the income distribution would lose more than half of their purchasing power if the United States shut out all international trade, owing to higher prices. Median-income consumers would still lose more than a quarter of their purchasing power, as compared to only a 3 percent gain in purchasing power for Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution. Although these estimates are based on an extreme counterfactual, the numbers remind us of the potential for new trade agreements to reduce prices in the United States and raise consumers’ purchasing power, particularly for middle-class consumers.

(1) http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...dfr9yjnDcLh17m
(2) http://www.nber.org/papers/w20331.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

If you have more doubts about the benefits of free trade, I thereby present the image of a happy elephant.

[Theodarzna]

No. Hillary was liberal, Hillary is liberal. You have this ridiculous view that I should try to talk someone out of supporting her because they believe she would be a different leader than I. It's stupid. Did you try talking the anti-government types out of supporting Sanders because they couldn't look past his corrupted government talk to see that he would create the largest federal government in history?

It is absolutely ridiculous that you call for me to defend the claims of every other Clinton supporter. Here is the support for MY view.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/h...on-is-liberal/



So if you are going to contend that her policies are diametrically opposed to Sanders you need to put up or shut up.

Again were is this lecture when Skroe is calling her a conservative? 'Tis only I who get the Hillary is "totes" liberal shpeal.

[Theodarzna]

Maybe you should ask the people that are actually claiming she is those things. Given the increasing importance of SCOTUS, I don't really think Hillary is going to try to use the SCOTUS nominee to compromise with the Republicans, who are unlikely to compromise in the first place. I would fully expect them to continue and probably even intensify their basic philosophy of governance as we saw during Obama's administration if Hillary is elected, which means they're just going to try to take the government hostage until they get what they want and, if they can't accomplish that, throw a tantrum and prevent basic functioning to the best of their ability.

Given its importance will not the GOP sand bag her to death just as they did Obama, exploiting her desperate zeal for bargain's and compromises to claim she can "get things done."

The problem is your putting someone out there who is eager to make a deal, not actually achieve anything.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how many will flock to the Trump camp. I know some who already have.

I laughed.

[Goradan]

I feel like he sold out, too. I know he was courted pretty heavily by the Green Party camp. I think he was encouraged to support Clinton in order to ensure Trump doesn't take office, it was a wise decision but I would have preferred that he ran third party or independent instead.

Yeah because Bernie Seems to be someone that would stand against republican even if it seems somewhat irrational. Personally I think that Hillary is not a good candidate for the presidential election and Trump would be better as he is not the one that would make america better, but someone that could set it up for the next president to improve the conditions in the U.S

[Theodarzna]

Since Democrats actually show up for presidential elections, they may very well end up with a majority in both the senate and the house.

And how well did the Democrats do with their last majority? They couldn't even get a public option.

[Celista]

Yeah because Bernie Seems to be someone that would stand against republican even if it seems somewhat irrational. Personally I think that Hillary is not a good candidate for the presidential election and Trump would be better as he is not the one that would make america better, but someone that could set it up for the next president to improve the conditions in the U.S

I don't know why people keep suggesting that Trump will somehow make it easier for change to occur. It's like deciding to fix a leaky faucet by blowing up the house.

[purebalance]

Seriously. I don't get why anyone's going crazy over this. He said he's not going third party, and that he'd support the winner of the Democratic primary. The fact that he's doing what he said he'd do is apparently too much to handle.

Also, gasp, the losing democratic candidate just endorsed the winning democratic candidate! What an unprecedented development! /s

Because he refused to even remotely admit he was losing just like all of his supporters. He was asked on interviews if he lost would he support Hillary and still refused to answer the question.

[Wells]

And how well did the Democrats do with their last majority? They couldn't even get a public option.

Yeah, a public option would have been nice. However, like everything else in politics, they had to compromise with the now defunct Blue Dogs to get anything, and that's better than the status quo at the time.

That said, the ACA was a significant accomplishment.

[Vash The Stampede]

She supports a lot of his policies right? Free education, $15 minimum wage, and Universal Health Care?

[Wells]

She supports a lot of his policies right? Free education, $15 minimum wage, and Universal Health Care?

More or less. Some of her policy proposals aren't as generous as his were, but they'd certainly be an improvement.

[stomination]

With Hillary you get:

• Paid parental leave
• Universal pre-K
• No student debt from public universities
• No family will have to pay more than 10% of their income for child care
• A foreign policy expert
• A promise to address immigration reform within her first 100 days as President
• The veto pen in the hands of a Democrat to ensure existing social programs, etc. are safe

Libertarian ideology is not compatible with Bernie's ideas, and Jill Stein is simply imcompetent. Its safe to say that Bernie chosed wise when it come to the "lesser of evils". As in the other options were either incopetent or simply clashed with his ideas.

Gitmo still operating?

Just cause someone said they will do something doesn't mean they ever will.

[Wells]

Gitmo still operating?

Just cause someone said they will do something doesn't mean they ever will.

Never got why people criticize Obama for that one.

[stomination]

Never got why people criticize Obama for that one.

Because he said he was going to get it done....and he is pretty good with issuing executive orders so he could have easily done it.

[Wells]

Because he said he was going to get it done....and he is pretty good with issuing executive orders so he could have easily done it.

I haven't seen any compelling argument it could be done satisfactorily without congressional involvement. And his EO use has been low by historical standards.