2020 Presidential Election

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

I have to agree with you Martina!

A felon is paying for a crime by serving time in a prision facility, the felon did not lose their citizenship because they are paying for or have paid for a crime. What does that really say to people...”you have to follow the rules, pay for your crime, and then become a non person?”

IMO when crime and punishment issues can only voted on by people who have never committed a crime or been punished, that is a recipe for inhumane treatment, and more crime

[kittygrrl]

I think if you've murdered someone you don't deserve to vote..because the person you've murdered won't ever ever ever get the chance to do something in this world again. You should lose that privilege and a few more. Sorry, if you disagree, but serving time will never make up for that loss to a family or the country. Other then that non violent crimes i'm fine with them retaining voting rights.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I think if you've murdered someone you don't deserve to vote..because the person you've murdered won't ever ever ever get the chance to do something in this world again. You should lose that privilege and a few more. Sorry, if you disagree, but serving time will never make up for that loss to a family or the country. Other then that non violent crimes i'm fine with them retaining voting rights.

Not picking on you, just musing.....

Say you are right...what else shouldn’t they be able to do?

Drive a car?
Get married?
Have children?
Get life saving surgery?

I mean, of all the things their victim can never do again, we pick voting? Most felons will get out of prision, even murderers. They will have paid their debt as society decided it should be, so they keep on paying in an “eye for an eye” kind of trade-off?

Like I said, just musing.....

[C0LLETTE]

So, I did a bit of research on whether "citizenship" is a right or a privilege and found this:

"Citizenship is understood as a "right to have rights" since it serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as the right to freedom of expression, vote, due process, live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance."
(Anonymously posted)

So, it would seem that to revoke someone's right to vote, you'd have to first go through the process of revoking their citizenship.

The Rights and Responsibilities of Canadian Citizens are outlined/defined somewhat differently and on the basis of a Charter. The issue of prisoners voting was settled by the Supreme Court in 2002.

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Aug 25, 2015 :

"More than 22,000 federal inmates eligible to vote ...

Polling stations will be set up in Canadian prisons on Oct. 9 so inmates can exercise their right to vote.

When Canadians vote in the federal election in October, thousands will cast their ballot from behind bars.

Inmates in federal prisons and provincial jails are eligible to vote for a candidate in the riding where they lived before they were incarcerated.

In the last federal election in 2011, voter turnout was 54 per cent in penitentiaries, not far below the 61 per cent who exercised their democratic right in the general population.


"They are part of the polity and they want to be part of the democratic process," Catherine Latimer, executive director of The John Howard Society of Canada, told CBC News.

Prisoners are informed voters, advocate says

Because prisoners have time to read and watch television news, they are just as informed - if not even more so - than Canadian voters on the outside, she said. Kits will also be distributed to help them with the voting process.

A 2002 Supreme Court of Canada judgment gave federal prisoners the right to vote on constitutional grounds, ruling 5-4 that voting is a fundamental right in a democracy.

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

Not picking on you, just musing.....

Say you are right...what else shouldn’t they be able to do?

Drive a car?
Get married?
Have children?
Get life saving surgery?

I mean, of all the things their victim can never do again, we pick voting? Most felons will get out of prision, even murderers. They will have paid their debt as society decided it should be, so they keep on paying in an “eye for an eye” kind of trade-off?

Like I said, just musing.....

Ms Tinkerberry, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts! As to your musings...as to what other things i think a murderer should not have access to...I haven't given it that much thought but lets start with guns, running for a public office, having custody of minor children in a divorce settlement..at least...you bought up paying for their crimes, but exactly how can you pay for taking a life???..will serving a sentence restore that person's life? There is nothing that this person can ever do to repay that debt. And while it's just my perspective, I'm very comfortable living with it. I don't want a known murderer living next door to me. Not very woke, I suppose but i would feel threaten ...

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

Ms Tinkerberry, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts! As to your musings...as to what other things i think a murderer should not have access to...I haven't given it that much thought but lets start with guns, running for a public office, having custody of minor children in a divorce settlement..at least...you bought up paying for their crimes, but exactly how can you pay for taking a life???..will serving a sentence restore that person's life? There is nothing that this person can ever do to repay that debt. And while it's just my perspective, I'm very comfortable living with it. I don't want a known murderer living next door to me. Not very woke, I suppose but i would feel threaten ...

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Ms Tinkerbelly..you always make me think and smile at the same time! It's very welcoming ty

[C0LLETTE]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Wish I had your skills, MsTinkerbelly

[MsTinkerbelly]

Did you all see where Joe Biden raised over $6 million on his first day?

My biggest fear has come to pass...unless someone ( anyone) can pull a rabbit out of their hats, it will come down to a bunch of white men fighting it out in the end for the nomination.

Older America is going to vote for good old Joe, and younger America is going to vote for Bernie; the party will be split, and the orange POS will win again.

Fun times!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Wish I had your skills, MsTinkerbelly

After multiple time outs, I have learned to bite my tongue. It is practically ground meat at this stage of my life, but I get to keep this community for another day.

Sometimes it’s hard to be me

[Kätzchen]

I miss reading posts by Anya and the links to articles she used to supply on forum boards, concerning political issues. I often wonder what she'd say or what kernel of truth might emerge by Anya sharing with the community.

I've been quietly thinking about a plethora of things, mainly fall-out type things, concerning all the ways the pillars of American democracy are under assault and crumbling daily, under the dictatorship of the current WH occupant. In my mind, it's like an unveiling of the massive prejudicial attitudes which have long been a part of the fabric of American life: Inequalities present in everyday life which affect people because of their color, orientation, or other particular status' relevant to each person, in individual and collective ways. It's terribly painful, truly.

I hold hope that unexpected voices will make their choices heard when it comes time to elect people to VIP positions in DC and beyond.

I think our country deserves better than the end result of the 2016 election.

Last I remember, Anya was going to devote personal time to helping out in the S. California League of Women's Voters. I always wonder where she is and how she is doing.

I appreciate reading member's posts in Dark_Crystal's 2020 Presidential Election forum thread. I think DC made some highly articulate points in recent posts, so I am grateful for her latest thoughts about conformity and I think conformity definitely plays a critical role in how people make decisions, whether it is personal decisions in their own life, or how they perceive making useful decisions which impacts the greater community at large, in collective ways.

I think both DC and MsTinkerbelly have made critical arguments on ways we (the general 'we') might see another split among party-lines, concerning voting issues. But I have always been concerned about voting rights, the suppression and opposition to voting rights, and matters inextricably linked to voting processes, which in the end, as we've seen for the past decade or so, has affected the outcome of particular voting/election processes.

Like many, I think America is done with Toxic Politics and Toxic forms of oppression and I hold faith and hope that the next election in 2020 will produce a better result, so we and allies across the world, are spared another four years of the monster (and their cronies) currently residing in the WH.

[Martina]

I have to say I am seeing more Dems attacking other Dems. It's a primary. I guess you have to. But after my choice of Bernie and Kamala, I just don't care. I don't hate any of the other candidates although with Booker I come close. That Tulsi Gabbard definitely makes me uncomfortable. But really, none is so God awful that I wouldn't vote for them if they got the nomination.

A lot of mainstream Dems are getting on Socialist sites and shaking their little fists, saying you better vote blue no matter what. That shit so backfires. And the progressives picking apart every vote and decision the mainstream Dems have made have me rolling my eyes. I'm like, no shit, they're Democrats.

It is frustrating though. Trump is actually looking stronger. And the world, IMO, is getting more fucked up by the day. The news about the environment is terrifying. It would be good to field a strong alternative who could excite independents and disaffected Republicans.

The thing about Kamala is that people respect her. I think that is especially meaningful in this election. People might view her as someone who could make them feel safe. Bernie can really inspire people. Mayor Pete, people seem to like. We definitely need a candidate people can feel good about voting for for whatever reason. We can't risk another hold your nose candidate. Or even an I don't care that much candidate. It doesn't matter what quality, whether it's strength or vision or whatever, we definitely need someone people can feel good about voting for.

[homoe]

The only one I'd have trouble backing at this stage of the race would be Kirsten Gillibrand!

[Martina]

I just read for the second time that Obama voters who went Trump in 2016 are not likely to in 2020. Those voters and stay-at-homes lost Clinton the election. I'm more sure than ever that we got to get someone voters feel something good about. That's not necessarily likeability. But something positive. Something in addition to hating Trump to get them to wait in line. Kamala's strength inspires confidence, IMO. Obviously, I like Bernie best, but Kamala would be a good candidate.

[BullDog]

Harris is my first choice but I think Biden has the best chance to win. We'll see.

Oh my, Harris destroyed Barr. It was a true work of art. She's good.

[kittygrrl]

my choices are changing as time goes by...i prefer Biden at this point but because i think he has the best chance of winning..not because i agree with his politics..if you asked me my favs..it's probably jay inslee, mayor pete and harris..

[cathexis]

Unfortunately, I think Biden will probably get the rust belt and the rest of the Mid-West. He's blue collar relates well to that portion of the electorate. I think Gillibrand is too meek to fight in the bull pen. Kamala could survive the fight, but not my 1st choice. Got my eye on Mayor Pete. He's got his finger on the pulse on a large section of the country; because, he's skin and bone of the body of the center of America.

[Orema]

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans

By The New York Times Editorial Board.

May 10, 2019

President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.


The more President Trump escalates his trade war with China, the more American shoppers will notice higher prices in their favorite grocery stores, hardware shops and big-box retailers. Photo Credit: Callaghan O'Hare/Bloomberg

President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, are taxes that will be paid by Americans. That is a simple fact, and it remains true no matter how many times Mr. Trump insists the money will come from China.

Mr. Trump’s latest escalation of his trade fight with China is a 25 percent tariff, or import tax, on products that compose about one third of China’s exports to the United States, including Chinese bicycles, circuit boards and wooden doors. The tariff rate on those goods was previously 10 percent. Mr. Trump also has threatened to impose the 25 percent rate on virtually all products imported from China — more than $500 billion in goods last year.

Mr. Trump could make an honest case for this tax increase. He could argue that Americans must endure higher prices because China will suffer too — while China does not bear the direct cost of the tariffs, it is likely to suffer a loss of sales — and the United States needs that leverage as it presses China to change its economic policies.

Instead, Mr. Trump continues to repeat the false claim that the money will come from China, even though he has been told repeatedly that this claim has no basis in fact. He is willfully peddling a falsehood for political gain.

The mechanics of tariffs are not complicated: The government sends a tax bill to the company that brings goods into the country. Most of those tax bills go to American companies, often import firms that specialize in dealing with the customs process.

It doesn’t really matter who gets the bill, however. The important question is where the money to pay it comes from. And in broad terms, there are only two options: It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

Consider the case of washing machines. In January 2018, Mr. Trump imposed a tariff on washing machines, initially at a rate of 20 percent. The tariff caused a 12 percent increase in the price of washing machines, according to a study by economists at the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago. It also resulted in a similar increase in the price of dryers. Americans responded by buying more domestic washing machines, creating about 1,800 new jobs. But the cost of the tariffs was borne entirely by American consumers. The study estimated that each of those new jobs came at a cost of more than $815,000.

The Trump administration has tried to focus the China tariffs on the industrial supply chain: products used in making other goods, rather than products sold directly to consumers. That means much of the cost initially is absorbed by faceless corporations.

But the bottom line remains either lower profits or higher prices.

Some of the money could, in theory, be squeezed from Chinese manufacturers. But a pair of recent studies by prominent academics, including the chief economist at the World Bank, have concluded that the full cost of the Trump tariffs is being paid here in the United States, although China has suffered a loss of access to the American market.

One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country.

The cost of a tax is not just the money extracted from the private sector but also the disruption of economic activity. Here, too, the tariffs are proving painful. The second study estimated that tariffs were extracting $3 billion a month from American companies and consumers — and causing an additional $1.4 billion a month in lost economic activity.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs also have prompted China to retaliate, and that is causing particular pain for Midwestern farmers who have lost a major market for their crops.

Mr. Trump tweeted on Friday that the federal government would collect $100 billion in tariff revenue and that he would use some of the money to purchase American agricultural products, which would then be shipped to “poor & starving countries.” The rest of the money, he said, could be used for “Infrastructure, Health care or anything else.”

It’s a good idea to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, infrastructure and health care.

But a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. There are better ways to raise the money. For example, the ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy that Mr. Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 could be reversed.

Moreover, there is growing reason to doubt that tariffs are serving Mr. Trump’s stated purpose of persuading China to change its trade policies. There is widespread agreement, both in the United States and among America’s allies, that China is engaged in unfair practices, such as state-subsidized manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and both formal and informal constraints on foreign businesses. Those are real problems, and enforceable commitments to enact reforms could deliver significant economic and environmental benefits. Mr. Trump’s tariffs could yet prove a painful success story.

But the cost of Mr. Trump’s approach has just gone up: Americans will be paying higher prices on a wide range of goods. And Mr. Trump — who famously declared in March 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” — has yet to show he can strike a deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/o...gtype=Homepage

[girl_dee]

Originally Posted by Orema

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans

By The New York Times Editorial Board.

May 10, 2019

President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.


The more President Trump escalates his trade war with China, the more American shoppers will notice higher prices in their favorite grocery stores, hardware shops and big-box retailers. Photo Credit: Callaghan O'Hare/Bloomberg

President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, are taxes that will be paid by Americans. That is a simple fact, and it remains true no matter how many times Mr. Trump insists the money will come from China.

Mr. Trump’s latest escalation of his trade fight with China is a 25 percent tariff, or import tax, on products that compose about one third of China’s exports to the United States, including Chinese bicycles, circuit boards and wooden doors. The tariff rate on those goods was previously 10 percent. Mr. Trump also has threatened to impose the 25 percent rate on virtually all products imported from China — more than $500 billion in goods last year.

Mr. Trump could make an honest case for this tax increase. He could argue that Americans must endure higher prices because China will suffer too — while China does not bear the direct cost of the tariffs, it is likely to suffer a loss of sales — and the United States needs that leverage as it presses China to change its economic policies.

Instead, Mr. Trump continues to repeat the false claim that the money will come from China, even though he has been told repeatedly that this claim has no basis in fact. He is willfully peddling a falsehood for political gain.

The mechanics of tariffs are not complicated: The government sends a tax bill to the company that brings goods into the country. Most of those tax bills go to American companies, often import firms that specialize in dealing with the customs process.

It doesn’t really matter who gets the bill, however. The important question is where the money to pay it comes from. And in broad terms, there are only two options: It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

Consider the case of washing machines. In January 2018, Mr. Trump imposed a tariff on washing machines, initially at a rate of 20 percent. The tariff caused a 12 percent increase in the price of washing machines, according to a study by economists at the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago. It also resulted in a similar increase in the price of dryers. Americans responded by buying more domestic washing machines, creating about 1,800 new jobs. But the cost of the tariffs was borne entirely by American consumers. The study estimated that each of those new jobs came at a cost of more than $815,000.

The Trump administration has tried to focus the China tariffs on the industrial supply chain: products used in making other goods, rather than products sold directly to consumers. That means much of the cost initially is absorbed by faceless corporations.

But the bottom line remains either lower profits or higher prices.

Some of the money could, in theory, be squeezed from Chinese manufacturers. But a pair of recent studies by prominent academics, including the chief economist at the World Bank, have concluded that the full cost of the Trump tariffs is being paid here in the United States, although China has suffered a loss of access to the American market.

One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country.

The cost of a tax is not just the money extracted from the private sector but also the disruption of economic activity. Here, too, the tariffs are proving painful. The second study estimated that tariffs were extracting $3 billion a month from American companies and consumers — and causing an additional $1.4 billion a month in lost economic activity.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs also have prompted China to retaliate, and that is causing particular pain for Midwestern farmers who have lost a major market for their crops.

Mr. Trump tweeted on Friday that the federal government would collect $100 billion in tariff revenue and that he would use some of the money to purchase American agricultural products, which would then be shipped to “poor & starving countries.” The rest of the money, he said, could be used for “Infrastructure, Health care or anything else.”

It’s a good idea to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, infrastructure and health care.

But a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. There are better ways to raise the money. For example, the ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy that Mr. Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 could be reversed.

Moreover, there is growing reason to doubt that tariffs are serving Mr. Trump’s stated purpose of persuading China to change its trade policies. There is widespread agreement, both in the United States and among America’s allies, that China is engaged in unfair practices, such as state-subsidized manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and both formal and informal constraints on foreign businesses. Those are real problems, and enforceable commitments to enact reforms could deliver significant economic and environmental benefits. Mr. Trump’s tariffs could yet prove a painful success story.

But the cost of Mr. Trump’s approach has just gone up: Americans will be paying higher prices on a wide range of goods. And Mr. Trump — who famously declared in March 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” — has yet to show he can strike a deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/o...gtype=Homepage

I have been saying this! While it is true that companies may look for alternatives to china (one of our manufacturers at my company has already said this) the bill is not going coming out of China’s pocket. The distributors and the customers are the ones paying more.

It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

To me this whole issue is just poking the bear.

[Martina]

According to CNN, Beto is not polling well. Tied for sixth with 2%. Maybe he wasn't "Born to Run."