The Bern Identity

nitro · Mar 13, 2016

'Be careful Bernie': Trump threatens to send supporters to Sanders events

"Donald Trump early Sunday accused Bernie Sanders of lying by saying the Vermont senator's "disrupters" aren't told to go to the GOP front-runner's events.

Trump also threatened in a tweet that his supporters would go to Sanders events if the Democratic hopeful wasn't "careful."

Sanders said on Saturday his supporters are not to blame for violence that broke out at a planned Trump rally in Chicago..."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/be-careful-bernie-trump-threatens-to-send-supporters-to-sanders-events/ar-AAgJ2Es?li=BBnb7Kz

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 13, 2016

I doubt Sanders instigated the violence at the Trump rally, but it is beyond disingenuous of him to deny they were largely his supporters. This however is the face of the modern democrat party increasingly. Thugs and goons looking to intimidate and shout down dissenting opinions. It is accepted on university campuses and even subtly encouraged. The Clintons are no strangers to this kind of bareknuckle politics either. You can ask the women Bill abused.

I am amazed that the other republican candidates were so quick to jump on the blame the victim bandwagon. Cowards all.

CaptainObvious · Mar 13, 2016

Neither Sanders or Clinton need to orchestrate the violent protests at Trump events. They have the domestic terrorists at Moveon.org and the thugs with BLM for that. Naturally the rest of the GOP is too fucking stupid to realize they are under assault, and in an act of surrender are apologizing for having an opinion other that what the radical left approves of. And then they wonder why Trump is so popular.

nitro · Mar 13, 2016

gwb-trading said:
Fair enough... I will read the information.
More...

Here is the dark side of these plans. Why, why must people abuse?

Chicago’s public housing divide, a Watchdogs / BGA special report

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/public-housings-gap-of-luxury-a-watchdogs-special-report/

piezoe · Mar 14, 2016

CaptainObvious said:
...Naturally the rest of the GOP is too fucking stupid to realize they are under assault, and in an act of surrender are apologizing for having an opinion other that what the radical left approves of. And then they wonder why Trump is so popular
More...

Trump is popular with about ~50% of Republicans as per polls two weeks ago. That suggests he is popular with about one quarter of the electorate. But it certainly would be fair to say that he is very popular with about half the Republican voters. I think a problem for him in the general election would be that those other 50% of Republican voters, for the most part are not neutral on Trump, but can't stand him. He is a polarizing figure. Will there be enough crossover votes from the Democrats to Trump in the general election to compensate. I doubt it. But it is a long time between now and November, and if Trump starts acting like a grown-up voters may forget all about his penis by November. The problem he is going to have, of course, is that the Democrats are not going to let the public forget. At this point, when the stuff about his wife acting in soft porn comes out, there is no way to know whether it will help him like being associated with trashy people helped Berlusconi, or hurt him like trashy associations hurt Jimmy Swaggart.

gwb-trading · Mar 14, 2016

piezoe said:
Yours is one of the opinions on ET I have great respect for. I would value your comments on what I have written below. I will add that the conditions you have spoken of above, unless we were describing the situation in the United States today, would not, in general, be descriptive of the advanced nations we regularly compare ourselves to. Also, it is good for us to keep in mind that the extreme skew we find in the wealth distribution may be reflected to some extent in average and median values for such things as property tax, etc., and therefore may give a distorted view of what is more commonly the case.

Here below are my general comments on which I would be much obliged to have your honest comment and criticism:

In the U.S., we have an economy where welfare competes effectively with unskilled labor's wages in many areas of the country. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. In 1966 it was $10.50/hr!

The U.S.trails all other advanced nations in social services. This is telling us that competition between labor's wages and welfare is not due to welfare being too generous, but instead is being caused by wages being far too low. Wages for un- and minimally skilled labor must rise to a level that competes effectively with welfare.
The greatest economic health is found in those parts of the country where the minimum wage is much higher than the Federal mandate.

We have unwittingly incorporated perverse incentives into welfare qualification in some States. This is especially noticeable in pockets of poverty in the deep South, where misalignment of incentives and bad policies beget even more dependence on welfare. We are moving in the wrong direction in those areas. In general, in those States where medicaid wasn't expanded, the only way a person forced by circumstances to try to live on very low wages, or food stamps alone, can access the main welfare system and routine medical care is to have one or more dependents. The more dependents an indigent person has, the more they can draw from the welfare system. We have created an incentive for single women to become mothers, and the more children those mothers bear the greater the financial support they are eligible to receive. Statistically these unmarried women, together with their male partners, are producing the next generation of welfare mothers and fathers. Incentives are clearly misaligned.

By pushing for a living wage for all full-time workers and universal access to healthcare, the Sanders proposals will go a long way toward reversing the perverse incentives we have built into our welfare eligibility requirements. Of course This must be accompanied by job expansion for low skilled labor. That is also addressed by the Sanders plan.

Sanders has offered the most detailed plan of any candidate for how he would pay for his proposals. (see Sanders.com) I've looked at these proposals. They are completely doable, and far more easily than one might imagine. Which raises the question, "Why has it taken us so long to act in all or best interests?" I can only guess it is because we have been stuck in our ideologies so firmly that we have become inept at logically weighing advantages and disadvantages. We call Sanders proposals socialist, as if they were something unusual in the U.S. economy. In fact, the economy is already both socialist and capitalist, and if Sanders proposals are adopted we will still have a largely capitalist economy. All modern economies are mixed economies. The U.S. will remain an economy with the greatest capitalist component. What Sanders is proposing is mainstream in the world's political landscape and in comparison with prosperous periods of our twentieth century past. What we have been doing since the 1980s is radical by comparison.

I have said, many times, in these Forums that there is plenty of money, but our priorities are in the wrong order. We can either entrench ourselves in ideology, and experience deteriorating social conditions, that will lead to the rise of nationalism and more Donald Trumps, or we can recognize our mistakes and correct them. We should be asking how is it possible that all these other countries we compare ourselves to are doing so much better socially then we are? There is no reason we can't compete both socially and technologically. Why does it have to be either or? That should make no sense to anyone. Our goal should be to compete in both areas. As it is, we are only technologically competitive. We could do so much more.
More...

You put forward some good commentary above. I got busy at work so I can't provide my feedback immediately but hope to in the near future.

achilles28 · Mar 14, 2016

piezoe said:
Trump is popular with about ~50% of Republicans as per polls two weeks ago. That suggests he is popular with about one quarter of the electorate. But it certainly would be fair to say that he is very popular with about half the Republican voters. I think a problem for him in the general election would be that those other 50% of Republican voters, for the most part are not neutral on Trump, but can't stand him. He is a polarizing figure. Will there be enough crossover votes from the Democrats to Trump in the general election to compensate. I doubt it. But it is a long time between now and November, and if Trump starts acting like a grown-up voters may forget all about his penis by November. The problem he is going to have, of course, is that the Democrats are not going to let the public forget. At this point, when the stuff about his wife acting in soft porn comes out, there is no way to know whether it will help him like being associated with trashy people helped Berlusconi, or hurt him like trashy associations hurt Jimmy Swaggart.
More...

Hillary has the same problem with Bernie supporters. Many Bernie voters refuse to support Hillary and side with Trump on deindustrialization. Cross-over will be a hallmark this election cycle. Neocons will cross-over and vote Hillary. Independents and Reagan democrats will cross-over and vote Trump. This is the realignment happening between establishment fuckboys and outsider populists. Plenty of losers in both parties support establishment candidates. And plenty of nationalists in both parties who want to see the establishment die an ugly death. Hence the "big realignment".

Hillary must cede a big position to Sanders. Perhaps VP. The biggest story of the year is the Democratic Party is tearing itself up slightly less then the Republican party.

piezoe · Mar 14, 2016

gwb-trading said:
You put forward some good commentary above. I got busy at work so I can't provide my feedback immediately but hope to in the near future.
More...

Thanks. Appreciate your taking time to read it. It is rather long.

nitro · Mar 14, 2016

It's going to be wet in the Midwest tomorrow. The Bern voters will not be deterred:

CaptainObvious · Mar 14, 2016

piezoe said:
Trump is popular with about ~50% of Republicans as per polls two weeks ago. That suggests he is popular with about one quarter of the electorate. But it certainly would be fair to say that he is very popular with about half the Republican voters. I think a problem for him in the general election would be that those other 50% of Republican voters, for the most part are not neutral on Trump, but can't stand him. He is a polarizing figure. Will there be enough crossover votes from the Democrats to Trump in the general election to compensate. I doubt it. But it is a long time between now and November, and if Trump starts acting like a grown-up voters may forget all about his penis by November. The problem he is going to have, of course, is that the Democrats are not going to let the public forget. At this point, when the stuff about his wife acting in soft porn comes out, there is no way to know whether it will help him like being associated with trashy people helped Berlusconi, or hurt him like trashy associations hurt Jimmy Swaggart.
More...

I don't think he'll need any democratic crossover votes. Given the choice between Clinton and Trump, that 50% of repubs that don't care for him will hold their nose and vote Trump. Clinton will not energize the democrats enough to offset the new Trump supporters. I still maintain that Sanders would give any republican a better run than Clinton. Trump vs. Sanders is too close to call. Trump vs. Clinton. Trump destroys her. Anybody but Trump, and the repubs lose regardless.