Revolutionaries

[enid602]

If the goal is getting private money out of elections, then I would say we are ALL revolutionaries. If the goal is reversing income inequality, then I would say we are ALL revolutionaries. If the goal is to make our Universal Healthcare (ACA) more like Denmark's (or instituting single payer if the insurance companies cannot serve us), then I would say we are ALL revolutionaries. If the goal is color blind criminal justice reform, then I would say we are ALL revolutionaries. If the goal is minimizing gun deaths, then I would say we are ALL revolutionaries. The republicans, not so much . . .

[Trust Buster]

1. In this we can agree.

[enid602]

2. goal

I think Hillary decided (after getting so much grief about her 'vast right-wing conspiracy' comment 20 odd years ago) to try to beat the system by being better at it than her competition. Bernie feels that you have to eschew outside money entirely to beat the system. Two different approaches. One common goal. Whomever wins is unimportant. As long as the Republicans don't.

[Trust Buster]

5. Two points. 1) if you research the 90's to any degree, a vast Right wing conspiracy is not debatable

2) this poster began a common position thread. You responded with differences. Nice.

[enid602]

13. careful

Well, the right-wing conspiracy was undeniable. We lived through it. But she was heavily criticized for making the statement when she did. We saw a far more careful Hillary after that. Still, I think she's revolutionary.

[LiberalElite]

3. Nice try. E for Effort

She's not a "revolutionary" and neither are her supporters.

[enid602]

4. Hill

I've followed Hillary for a long time. I've never doubted her sincerity to the left's cause. She may not be AS revolutionary as Bernie, but committed nonetheless. Bernie's revolution will continue, but just maybe she might be the person to protect our interests in the near term.

[Trust Buster]

7. The Sanders supporters are just not interested in reapproachment.

[enid602]

9. no offense

But they might consider 'rapprochement.'

[Blue Meany]

6. Agreed but I think we need to dig a little deeper than that...

Even if we find a way to bar money from politics those with enough wealth will find ways to influence politicians as well as popular opinion through the media. Therefore, I think there needs to be an upper limit on wealth and income, perhaps based on some multiple of a bottom limit on poverty. They say a rising tide lifts all boats, so let's put that in the contract.

As long as we are engaging in a neoliberal foreign policy that focuses on opening up countries to resource, environmental and labor exploitation using free trade agreements and reinforced with military interventions, we are essentially be taxed to subsidize our own demise and the oppression of others around the world. We need to completely reinvent our foreign policy so that reflects the needs of people at the bottoms and middle of societies not just those at the top. This would involve taking military intervention off the table except for the most dire situations, and using carefully callibrated tarrifs and trade agreements to advance a balance of interests between various stakeholders such as the labor, business, human rights, and environmental communities.

[enid602]

8. poverty

Tying the 'bottom limit of poverty' as a fraction of the upper limits of wealth would be a novel idea.

[enid602]

10. neo liberal foreign policy

Well, we certainly don't want to go back to the types of military intervention and foreign policy folly characterized by GWB's tenure. I still think Obama would have been able to react even better to the Great Recession had he not been saddled with the $3 Trillion invoice for Bush's misadventures. When it comes to trade, we have an interesting choice; she's perhaps too pro trade, and he's never supported a trade agreement. I suspect the ideal path might somehow be in the middle. I don't think we'll see the reemergence of Philcos, Packards, Kelvinators and Studebakers anytime soon. The world has changed.

[teamster633]

11. It's pretty rare that the hidden cost of "cheap" foreign goods is ever acknowledged.

Without our military guarantee of global "free" trade our own goods would be substantially more competitive.

[enid602]

12. healthcare

Our sky high health costs probably do more to hinder our exports.

[Blue Meany]

14. Not just that, but they lead to the export of jobs. Ford moved its plant from Detroit

across the border to Ontario because of health care costs. But now they are probably in Mexico or somewhere. Without free trade, the majority of businesses could have been pretty easily persuaded to support single-payer health care, and there was a coalition of businesses lobbying for it. But NAFTA put an end to that.

[Blue Meany]

15. Also, if the US dollar wasn't the reserve currency of the world

our labor costs would be more competitive, because the hording of dollars to use in international trade inflates the value. The costs of empire are heavy for working people but no one connects the dots.

[enid602]

16. reserve

If our currency weren't the reserve currency, we would have to pay market rates on our $19Trillion debt. That would be devastating for working people.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

17. K&R a 5th rec for publicity

[boston bean]

18. Vote for Hillary, then!