Salon: A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016

[jg10003]

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/a_liberal_case_for_donald_trump_the_lesser_of_two_evils_is_not_at_all_clear_in_2016/

[hollowdweller]

1. All that stuff really worries me

I see Clinton as potentially a better president than Trump and potentially more populist, but the issue of trust based on her past experience is a hurdle.

Also if judge the past we'd think Clinton would be more conservative than she lets on and Trump more liberal.

I really do feel like we are repeating 2004 all over again.

[Downwinder]

2. Trump says no cuts to Social Security

Clinton says maybe.

[redruddyred]

10. ditto on TPP nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Trump has no social security policy; Clinton says no cuts

Donald Trump has yet to Take a Stand.

http://takeastand.aarp.org/candidate/donald-trump/

Social Security isn’t just a program—it’s a promise. As president, Hillary will:

Defend Social Security against Republican attacks. Republicans are using scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of Social Security to push through policies that would jeopardize it. The real threat is Republican attempts to undermine the bedrock of the system. Hillary believes that Social Security must remain what it has always been: a rock-solid benefit that seniors can always count on—not subject to the budget whims of Congress or to the fluctuations of the stock market. She fought Republican efforts to undermine Social Security when she was a senator and throughout her career, and she will fight them as president. As president, she would:

Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.

http://takeastand.aarp.org/candidate/hillary-clinton/

Hillary Clinton: Clinton wants to “expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system — including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members.”

Of note, Clinton is the only candidate who wants to improve benefits for caregivers, according to AARP. “She supports targeted benefit expansions, including a caregiver credit so that people (mostly women) who take time out of the workforce to care for loved ones aren’t penalized when calculating their Social Security benefits,” according to SocialSecurityWorks.org.

And like Sanders, Clinton wants to “preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more.” Options include: taxing some of their income above the current Social Security cap and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system. Read Clinton’s proposal.

SocialSecurityWorks.org praised Sanders and Clinton for opposing all types of Social Security benefits cuts, including efforts to raise the retirement age. Of note, Clinton recently tweeted “I won’t cut Social Security. As always, I’ll defend it, and I’ll expand it.”
...
Trump previously proposed raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 from 67. But he backed away from that stance last year and has since called for infusing Social Security with cash by canceling foreign aid to anti-American countries. Read Is Donald Trump’s new plan for Social Security crazy?

According to SocialSecurityWorks.org, Trump has criticized Republicans for supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and has said he won’t cut benefits, but will instead strengthen them by growing the economy. This is a departure from his position in a book he wrote in 2000, where he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and said it should be privatized, according to Lacy Crawford, a communications director for SocialSecurityWorks.org .

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-candidates-plan-to-fix-social-security-2016-02-16

[Downwinder]

13. Trump to PJM on 2016 Platform: No Social Security Cuts

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/trump-to-pjm-on-2016-platform-no-social-security-cuts

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Nearly a year ago, and it's just him saying 'no cut'; he still hasn't got a policy

Do you really think that's better than the Democrats, who both have policies about what they'd do? Is every word that Trump says that important to you? Do you trust him that much, that he doesn't have to explain anything to you?

Are you still saying you think Trump is better that Clinton on social security?

[Downwinder]

15. I don't trust either one of them.

From a political standpoint, I think cuts to Social Security, like "Welfare Reform," are more likely to come from a Democratic Administration than a Republican one.

I am 100% dependent on Social Security.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. So why bother bringing it up, as if Trump is better than Hillary?

You misrepresented Hillary's position (now you're just saying you don't care what she says, you think she's a liar), and you tried to paint Trump as trustworthy.

With Democrats like you, what Democratic candidate needs opponents?

[Downwinder]

17. I don't think she is a liar.

I think she is a Legal professional who chooses her words very carefully.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. So why bother bringing it up, as if Trump is better than Hillary?

You misrepresented her position, to make Trump look good. Why would any DUer do that?

[Downwinder]

19. Social Security is a life or death situation for me.

I want no wiggle room. "I will fight" is not equivalent to "I will veto."

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. But Hillary has been far more specific on Social Security than Trump, and advocates raising

it for some people, while Trump is the one who has only said "I won't cut" and nothing more. But from your post, one might get the incorrect impression that the reverse was true.

So, again, why did you try to make Trump look good, and Hillary bad? What was your motivation?

[Downwinder]

22. "I will fight" is not ""I won't cut."

I want a categorical statement from Hillary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. She has said both "I won’t cut Social Security" and "she will fight" and "she will oppose"

"Republican efforts to undermine Social Security" and "reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments" respectively. The quotes are in #12.

Why, when she's been so much more definite than Trump, did you try to make Trump look good, and Hillary bad? This is a Democratic board.

[Downwinder]

25. To me "I will fight" is a maybe.

She has six months to establish a more definitive position.

Until that point I will remain on the fence.

I am not making her look bad, I am only parsing her words from her official web site.

This is not a negotiable issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. And she has also said "I won't cut", which is what you wanted her to say

You have been ignoring that, repeatedly. You claim that this is an important issue for you, but you seem hopelessly uninformed about what she's said.

Your 'fence' has you halfway to supporting Trump, a bigoted lying egomaniac that you can't trust for a second. You should be ashamed to be sitting on it.

[Downwinder]

29. Are you claiming

that the statements on her web site are not valid?

It would seem that you are the one making her look bad.

Keep digging.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. "I won’t cut Social Security. As always, I’ll defend it, and I’ll expand it"

She tweeted that, as #12 says.

What are you claiming that I said "are not valid"?

[Downwinder]

31. "Fight" is a nebulous term. It is an invitation to negotiate.

"'Fight any effort to privatize or weaken Medicare and Social Security, and expand Social Security for today’s beneficiaries and generations to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more."

A statement to "veto any cuts to Social Security," would be substantive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. AGAIN, what are you claiming I said was not valid?

You have consistently avoided answering questions. You tried to make Trump look good, and Clinton look bad.

Why? What is your reason for pushing a Republican conman on DU? What is your agenda in this thread? Why did you misrepresent Clinton's position?

[Downwinder]

33. I am not pushing anyone on anybody.

I did not misrepresent her position. By leaving her statement as is, it is subject to interpretation. Perhaps my interpretation is incorrect, but I am the voter. To win my vote the statement must be stronger.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Clinton has said "I won't cut Social Security"; you claimed she might

So, yes, you misrepresented her position. You said you wanted her to say "I won't cut", and when I pointed out she had already said that, you decided you need the word 'veto' in there.

While moving your goalposts to demand a particular word before you're vote for a Democrat over the sociopathic Republican to whom you gave the benefit of the doubt (why haven't you been demanding the word 'veto' from him? Yes, that's why you are pushing Trump on us), you accused me of saying something on her site is not valid. What?

[Downwinder]

35. I assume the web site to be authoritative. Is it not?

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. What the fuck are you talking about?

I have no idea whatsoever you are talking about. What words on the website do you want to discuss?

[Downwinder]

37. Thanks for the MS therapy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Again, what the fuck are you talking about?

"MS therapy"?
Why have you given up trying to have a conversation? You claimed this was important to you. I've shown you that Hillary has said she won't cut Social Security, and you don't seem to care any more. Instead, you talk nonsense about whether her website is 'valid' or 'authoritative', and claim I said it wasn't. I did no such thing.

Now you're rambling about "MS therapy". What is your point?

[Downwinder]

39. You have not convinced me.

DU is my therapy for MS, thanks for playing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. So this isn't important to you after all, but just 'play'

Is your liking for Donald Trump just 'play' too?

Next time, admit you're just fucking around with people rather than claiming an issue is important to you.

[Downwinder]

41. MS therapy is very important to me, much more so than politics.

I never claimed to like Trump. I pointed out an issue that needs to be addressed.

When the conversation becomes vulgar it means there is nothing more to say.

Plus it is time to shoot up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. You claimed it was life or death for you; now you admit you were playing

You have just admitted you were trolling. You tried to make Trump look good, and a Democrat bad. You ignored that the issue had already been addressed, and carried on trying to make Hillary look bad.

[Downwinder]

43. Social Security is life or death.

Any Social Security cuts should be accompanied by a euthanasia pill. Starvation is a bad way to go.

If the web site is authoritative, the issue has not been addressed.

[MBS]

3. This is outrageous.

Not to mention destructive and stupid.
Come on, wake up people. (Yes, I mean YOU, Susan Sarandon).

[zalinda]

4. Hillary has to earn her vote, NO ONE is owed a vote. eom

[hollowdweller]

5. She will get my vote if she's nominated

However she will have to prove she's trustworthy in her first term for me to vote for her again.

[LiberalElite]

8. She doesn't have to prove it

before her first term? On second thought: maybe that's setting the bar too high.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Here's the tax plan of the man you think is 'far better than Hillary'

At a time of exceptionally wide levels of income inequality, the tax-cut proposals from Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would produce extremely large and unprecedented tax-cut windfalls for people with incomes exceeding $1 million a year, almost certainly at the expense of low- and middle-income households once budget cuts to pay for the tax cuts are taken into account. Both tax plans would ultimately increase the already substantial incomes of people who make over $1 million a year by about 20 percent, with the revenues lost due to the tax cuts for millionaires exceeding $3 trillion over the coming decade.

These findings are based on an examination of the estimates that the respected Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) has produced of both the cost of the Trump and Cruz tax plans and how those plans would affect households at different income levels. (“Millionaires,” as used here, refers to households with annual incomes over $1 million, rather than to the amount of assets that households may hold.) This analysis is a companion piece to an earlier CBPP analysis on the effects these tax-cut plans would have on the nation’s revenue base; the earlier analysis found that both the Trump and Cruz plans would effectively shrink government revenues (as a share of GDP) to their levels back in the Truman era.[1] Like that analysis, this one does not examine John Kasich’s tax proposal because TPC has not assessed it, and doesn’t assess the proposals of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, as their proposals would increase taxes on millionaires, not reduce them.
...
TPC estimates that millionaires would receive tax cuts averaging about $380,000 (Trump) or $460,000 (Cruz) in 2025, the last year for which TPC has estimated the distribution of the tax cuts. (All average tax-cut figures in this report are adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2016 dollars.) The after-tax incomes of millionaires would increase by 17.9 percent under Trump and 21.6 percent under Cruz.

The tax cuts for the rest of the population would be far smaller. The middle fifth of households would receive tax cuts in 2025 that average $2,900 under Trump and $1,400 under Cruz, raising these households’ after-tax incomes by 4.9 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.

Although millionaires represent less than 1 percent of the population, in 2025 they would receive 38 percent of the Trump tax cuts and nearly half — 47 percent — of the Cruz tax cuts. In contrast, the bottom 80 percent of the population would receive just 32 percent of the Trump cuts and 19 percent of Cruz’s. Thus, in aggregate, millionaires would gain more than the bottom 80 percent of households combined under Trump’s plan and more than twice as much as the bottom 80 percent of households combined under Senator Cruz’s plan.

Multi-millionaires would fare best of all. The TPC data indicate that in 2025, the richest 0.1 percent of the population — those with incomes of more than $5.2 million — would receive a larger share of the tax cuts than more than 60 percent of the U.S. population under Trump and more than 80 percent of the population under Cruz.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/millionaires-would-gain-trillions-under-trump-and-cruz-tax-plans

This is a very basic point: are you rooting for the billionaires, like Trump is? Please consider this before you decide you prefer Republicans to Democrats.

[erpowers]

7. That Is Just Stupid

I do not want to take the time to do a point by point take down of what the author wrote, but the article does not match reality. For instance, Donald Trump criticizes China while he and his daughter have business products made in China. If he is so against China's human rights abuses, why does he allow his business products to be made in China. The author touts Trump's supposed support of environmentalist without pointing out that Trump is one of the biggest climate deniers.

[Oldenuff]

9. Ok..but do you really think Hillary will do anything

more than give lip service to any of the pressing issues of the day? I mean honestly,I have no confidence that she would do ANYTHING..unless directed to by the 1%ers.I seriously doubt that she has any integrity left,and is simply a puppet for the wealthy globalists.

I don't mean to sound cruel,but I believe she will turn on us in a heartbeat.You can't change who you are at your core,and neither can Hillary.She will deliver us to the TPP with a smile on her face.

If she said it was a sunny day,I would break out my rain gear.

[Paladin]

20. You've bougt into decades of a right-wing hate campaign against Hillary.

Do us all a favor and find a more suitable forum in which to vent. Such places are unfortunately easy to locate.

[djean111]

26. Oh, she really is not for war and fracking and the TPP and against Single Payer -

she is just having some fun with us? Means-testing Social Security instead of raising the cap is a little joke?

How is this the the result of some some RW hate campaign?

If not for the RW, I would fucking LOVE war and fracking and the TPP?

Get real. That vast RW conspiracy thing flopped a while back. And hey! if they hate Hillary that much - will Congress work with her? Why elect a guaranteed failure to get anything done? Oh, that's right - they will work with her on war and the TPP and weakening Social Security and fracking - and we will be told that is bipartisanship.

No, bipartisianship is when someone works with someone who has different beliefs on the issues. Not the case here, for many things.

[erpowers]

23. Sad Your Post Was Hidden

I completely disagree with you about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. However, your post should not have been hidden. People should have just point out why they think Hillary Clinton will make a better President.