2/27/16
I am madly in love with Bernie Sanders, but am slowly becoming ok with voting for Hillary Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.
She's not honest. She flip flops on most major policies. 20 years ago she was one of the two most moderate Democrats in the country. She has only been a Progressive for around 9 months or so. She is funded by huge Wall Street corporations. She voted to support the Iraq War, and she also supported the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell. But honestly, those qualities can be found in many of the past elected Presidents.
A lot of very significant and progressive legislation came out of the "smoke filled room." The Civil Rights act, the New Deal, and voting rights for women and black americans. Barack Obama, who cannot be considered a corrupt President, was elected the same way for the most part as Hillary would be, and the Administrations of Barack Obama have been very strong for very many, so a continuation of that would not be the end of the world. But its still a compromise...
The campaign of Bernie Sanders is the first political movement I ever felt I truly identified with. Many of the policies and issues that i have been complaining and thinking about for the last few years are the issues and policies that he is running on. His message found me. I identified with it before i even heard him speak, and then I did, and i knew that this was my message. This was the candidate for me.
I still believe he has a chance to win the nomination. Super Tuesday could be very good to him. Democratic voters just need to show up. More people like Bernie than any other candidate. But his supporters are not caucus goers, or primary voters. That the achilles heal of his constituency. But there still is hope.
Hillary is a juggernaut. She has had 8 years essentially to prepare for this race. Building a base. She has potential to be unstoppable.
If she is the nominee, I might have some thinking to do.
I will never forgive Donald Trump for making me think Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio aren't as crazy as I originally thought. Trump scares the living shit out of me. His presidency would be a disgrace, and could end is come disaster, hopefully not one of a national security kind. His rhetoric of hate, misogyny, bigotry, and dishonesty are shameful. But he has a lot of support.
The other two, Rubio and Cruz, have been in government. They have drafted policy. Fought in the trenches. Contributed to the governance of The United States of America. Trump has done none of that, and has shown no knowledge of anything that would apply to this job. A lot of candidates have gone way right or way left in the primary and then run straight to the middle in the general election. So i can surmise that much of that Rubio and Cruz are saying will be thrown slightly to the middle. Their propositions when it comes to social issues I disagree with, but I think Trump scares me more.
So since many of my largest issues with Hillary Clinton can be found in the resumes of past Presidents, I could see myself voting for her. Mainly because abstaining, or voting for a third party or something, basically ends up as being a vote for Trump. And a Trump Presidency is not a piece of American history I could ever live with knowing I contributed too.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
And Now You Say Something.
2/03/16
I am going to preface this by saying that this is not a position piece. My mind is not made up. This is me working through the issue that follows and also offering it up for discussion...
Earlier I was scrolling through facebook and along came a meme that said that congress had just voted to put a "scarlet letter" on passports for sex offenders.
1. I did not look to see if it was true or not.
2. My initial thought was "Oh, well sex offenders are bad, they are registered in this country if previously convicted. they are people that need to have an eye kept on."
But then I read a comment, that basically condemned the American criminal justice system and our political leaders for our reprehensible methods of addressing the rights of sex offenders. This intrigued me, so i read more comments. A few down was a quote that said "I can't be the only person in the world that thinks that "sex offenders" shouldn't be continuously punished after serving their sentence in jail/prison."
Now this was something I have never thought about. I do think that overall, if we have set punishments for crimes, once those are met the matter needs to be over. But I had never thought about that pertaining to sex offenders.
We forgive a lot of bed people for doing a lot of bad things, but we treat sex offenders very differently. From a purely liberal (small l not big L) perspective, the just solution would be the forgiveness or at least to not let that incident hinder the life of that person any longer, but as humans, we do treat crimes towards the invasion of ones body very seriously.
Rape and sexual assault are horrific crimes. But so is beating someone nearly to death, and leaving them severely physically and psychologically damaged, but for the most part, they are welcomed back into society with relative ease.
Should we reconsider our treatment of sex offenders? Is it more of a severe crime than the punishment? So should the punishment be more severe, so that apprehended offenders have a much less likely or no chance at repeating, and maybe it deters would be offenders? Or should we accept the punishments we have as adequate, and work on finding ways to get them to get help that's needed, and become apart of mainstream society again?
It is not only a look at ourselves as people, and the system of justice and injustice we have created. Its also an opportunity to look at how we think about justice. Whether its punishment, or treatment that is needed. Maybe its a mix of both. Either way I do think it is a conversation worth having.
I am going to preface this by saying that this is not a position piece. My mind is not made up. This is me working through the issue that follows and also offering it up for discussion...
Earlier I was scrolling through facebook and along came a meme that said that congress had just voted to put a "scarlet letter" on passports for sex offenders.
1. I did not look to see if it was true or not.
2. My initial thought was "Oh, well sex offenders are bad, they are registered in this country if previously convicted. they are people that need to have an eye kept on."
But then I read a comment, that basically condemned the American criminal justice system and our political leaders for our reprehensible methods of addressing the rights of sex offenders. This intrigued me, so i read more comments. A few down was a quote that said "I can't be the only person in the world that thinks that "sex offenders" shouldn't be continuously punished after serving their sentence in jail/prison."
Now this was something I have never thought about. I do think that overall, if we have set punishments for crimes, once those are met the matter needs to be over. But I had never thought about that pertaining to sex offenders.
We forgive a lot of bed people for doing a lot of bad things, but we treat sex offenders very differently. From a purely liberal (small l not big L) perspective, the just solution would be the forgiveness or at least to not let that incident hinder the life of that person any longer, but as humans, we do treat crimes towards the invasion of ones body very seriously.
Rape and sexual assault are horrific crimes. But so is beating someone nearly to death, and leaving them severely physically and psychologically damaged, but for the most part, they are welcomed back into society with relative ease.
Should we reconsider our treatment of sex offenders? Is it more of a severe crime than the punishment? So should the punishment be more severe, so that apprehended offenders have a much less likely or no chance at repeating, and maybe it deters would be offenders? Or should we accept the punishments we have as adequate, and work on finding ways to get them to get help that's needed, and become apart of mainstream society again?
It is not only a look at ourselves as people, and the system of justice and injustice we have created. Its also an opportunity to look at how we think about justice. Whether its punishment, or treatment that is needed. Maybe its a mix of both. Either way I do think it is a conversation worth having.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
An Old Jewish Man and a Dream
2/02/16
I donated to an election campaign for the first time today. I donated to the campaign of Bernie Sanders.
I don't only like Bernie Sanders because i agree with him, and think he is the most qualified, respectable, electable, honest, and smartest candidate. No, also like him because the political science nerd in me gets to geek out over him. He was 50 points behind Clinton when he started his campaign. He has no Super PAC. He has a complete grassroots political campaign the likes of which we have not seen in many many years. He is giving speeches to record breaking numbers of people, and in the month of January alone his campaign raised $20 million from contributions that averaged $27 apiece. His campaign exemplifies American Democracy. His campaign is the reward for the struggles of the Progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. His campaign is proof that Citizens United and other organizations are unnecessary and the the American democratic process can work perfectly fine when the people pick the candidates and the nominees, not the parties and the billionaires. You may disagree with the views of Bernie Sanders. You may think it deplorable that a Democratic Socialist has made it this far. But what you cannot discredit, and what you cannot disrespect is the way he did it. Bernie Sanders has been preaching the same message since 1990. He has not wavered. He has not had a scandal. He has been himself. He also gives away four stickers with any donation of $15 or more. So those will be cool. Its always nice to get mail.
When Bernie Sanders says he doesn't have a Super PAC, some of you might not know what that means. It means that all of his money comes from individual people, or families. Adjusted for inflation, individuals are only allowed to give up to $2500 to any candidate. Any donation over $50 has to be reported to the IRS. This allows for transparency, and with the total donation amount low,, it is impossible for the candidate to be in the pockets of their donors, and to owe them favors once in office. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the interest group Citizens United, and reestablished the legal president that "corporations are people too" and that limiting the amount of money that they could contribute to PAC's and in turn, contribute to candidates, is limiting the corporations right to "free speech" and is illegal. This was a huge ruling because not only did the court rule on the issue of the case, they went further and issued their own judicial review and overturned campaign finance rules that had been put in place in other trials. This opened up avenues for people like the Koch brothers to funnel billions of dollars to the candidate of their choice, helping them get elected, and in turn, getting policy that helps their cause once the candidate is in office. Now I could talk for hours about how horrific that actually is, but I hope that you can figure that out on your own.
But what Bernie has done is show that the people of America still care about politics. They still want their voice heard and when they scream all at once, they can be heard loud and clear. Bernie has not Super PAC's. Bernie gets his money from teachers, iron workers, administrators, fast food employees, college students, and the unemployed. Bernie gets his money from the people of America, and all he owes us in return is the platform he stands on and to honor the promises he has been making. But those promises have been made to all Americans, not to just a few very wealthy people.
I donated to the Sanders campaign 30 minutes ago, and already my $20 has done more good than the Koch brothers tens of millions have. Just ask Jeb Bush.
I donated to an election campaign for the first time today. I donated to the campaign of Bernie Sanders.
I don't only like Bernie Sanders because i agree with him, and think he is the most qualified, respectable, electable, honest, and smartest candidate. No, also like him because the political science nerd in me gets to geek out over him. He was 50 points behind Clinton when he started his campaign. He has no Super PAC. He has a complete grassroots political campaign the likes of which we have not seen in many many years. He is giving speeches to record breaking numbers of people, and in the month of January alone his campaign raised $20 million from contributions that averaged $27 apiece. His campaign exemplifies American Democracy. His campaign is the reward for the struggles of the Progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. His campaign is proof that Citizens United and other organizations are unnecessary and the the American democratic process can work perfectly fine when the people pick the candidates and the nominees, not the parties and the billionaires. You may disagree with the views of Bernie Sanders. You may think it deplorable that a Democratic Socialist has made it this far. But what you cannot discredit, and what you cannot disrespect is the way he did it. Bernie Sanders has been preaching the same message since 1990. He has not wavered. He has not had a scandal. He has been himself. He also gives away four stickers with any donation of $15 or more. So those will be cool. Its always nice to get mail.
When Bernie Sanders says he doesn't have a Super PAC, some of you might not know what that means. It means that all of his money comes from individual people, or families. Adjusted for inflation, individuals are only allowed to give up to $2500 to any candidate. Any donation over $50 has to be reported to the IRS. This allows for transparency, and with the total donation amount low,, it is impossible for the candidate to be in the pockets of their donors, and to owe them favors once in office. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the interest group Citizens United, and reestablished the legal president that "corporations are people too" and that limiting the amount of money that they could contribute to PAC's and in turn, contribute to candidates, is limiting the corporations right to "free speech" and is illegal. This was a huge ruling because not only did the court rule on the issue of the case, they went further and issued their own judicial review and overturned campaign finance rules that had been put in place in other trials. This opened up avenues for people like the Koch brothers to funnel billions of dollars to the candidate of their choice, helping them get elected, and in turn, getting policy that helps their cause once the candidate is in office. Now I could talk for hours about how horrific that actually is, but I hope that you can figure that out on your own.
But what Bernie has done is show that the people of America still care about politics. They still want their voice heard and when they scream all at once, they can be heard loud and clear. Bernie has not Super PAC's. Bernie gets his money from teachers, iron workers, administrators, fast food employees, college students, and the unemployed. Bernie gets his money from the people of America, and all he owes us in return is the platform he stands on and to honor the promises he has been making. But those promises have been made to all Americans, not to just a few very wealthy people.
I donated to the Sanders campaign 30 minutes ago, and already my $20 has done more good than the Koch brothers tens of millions have. Just ask Jeb Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)