Ad hominem view of capitalism will bring us nowhere as long as capitalism still exists

Reading over the Clinton, Trump, and Sanders websites and stances i focused on the their views on large corporations/wallstreet/CEO's and what not. More specifically Clinton and Sanders, Trumps website hardly mentioned anything about the topics. It's interesting to see how Clinton acts as though she will have any type of impact on corporations and more specifically Wall Street as she accepts a $7 million from George Soro's hedge fund to help fund her campaign. Acting like there are no strings attached to that is hard.

The same goes for Sanders on being an idiot, i'm not going to bash his agenda of free everything but rather talk about capitalism. Capitalism has been around for a long time but industrial capitalism which resemble much of what we have today didn't happen til after WW 2. He plans on taxing the rich, redistributing capital, breaking up banks, taxing corporations...ect. The globalized world we live in today is entirely capitalistic, this will obviously have negative effects here in the US when we make the move against capitalism. 

These aren't even really the arguments i am trying to make, but instead i want to focus almost entirely on capitalism. I am definitely pro capitalism right now, i think the pros outweigh the cons by a lot, currently. Whenever people ask me what about ethics i always say well infant mortality rate has halved since capitalism, whats ethical about letting babies die? It's almost as if people don't understand that capitalism has developed our country and most others into the modern day countries they are. People always say "well the systems broke" and its not, it's working more efficiently then ever and the only thing that seems able to stop it is climate change. I think climate change is the only reason capitalism ever will stop, and by the time we figure that problem out i think we will have no need for it anyways. The things is all our politicians say they are gonna do this and that against all the corporations and what not, but it will do absolutely nothing in the long run as long as capitalism exists. This is the system we and the rest of the world have colluded to, if we really want to do anything capitalism would have to stop. Is capitalism that bad? I don't think so and apparently most of the worlds leaders would agree, however as of right now it's definitely not going to last. Putting to use the ideas, technology, wealth, networking...ect i think is the best thing we can do now to stop the bigger problems like climate change, population, food, water later.


https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash 

Hillary can create a lot of progressive change, will she?

Hillary Clinton is guaranteed the nominee, provided some information or legal claims do not surface which will indite her on criminal charges. As but surely, so is Donald Trump. The question remains how progressive will her agenda actually be. To combat Bernie and his left wing supporters, Clinton made very evident strides to move her agenda left in order to steal some of Bernie's thunders. Altogether keeping her moderate voters bloc intact due to her reputation, while also garnering those voters who will #nevertrump. Now that Trump is the nominee, in debate season does she still need to appeal to her leftist voters? Easily she can defeat Trump based on his character, inexperience, among other factors. She can win this election without deferring to policy.

If she were to stick to her leftist agenda, she would need landslides to enact it. In our history, presidents who have done massive change have gathered this through other factors. Lincoln enacted massive change because the Democrats were in secession. FDR enacted massive change through the rallying past the depression, and Lyndon Johnson took control of an economic boom, plus a Kennedy assassination to create a lot of liberal momentum. Hillary has this chance. If she can crush Trump, predictably the house races might lean left giving the Democrats a majority. If the Democrats can really gather a majority with a huge landslide due to a divisive Republican nominee and historically low approval ratings, the change our country needs (arguably) seems very plausible. Will Hillary do this? Her core seems moderate, but she has shifted noticeably left this campaign. How real is this? We all know her reputation....Another factor that could jeopardize this is that the Democratic party is much more divided then we realize, to a point that was not the case in the past. If the Bernie supporters stay home, Clinton will have a much tougher battle on her hand and the House swaying might not come to fruition. The bottom line is that if the Bernie supports fully get behind Hillary, the change we desire can happen. The Democratic party needs to come together and take advantage of how weak the Republicans are now. This is our chance.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11601920/clinton-frum-johnson-1964

A political revolution might not be as easy as we think...

The sails in the wind of the Bernie Sanders campaign are crumbling, if not gone. A lot has been accomplished in the campaign, but Bernie has no chance and never really did. This campaign was titled as a progressive revolution against the establishment. Bernie really hit the mark on waking up a segment of disenfranchised American voters who are angry with the system. But he failed, why is this?


Bernie's war against the establishment was internal. Within the branches of the democratic party, he attempted to fix change which was a costly error. According to Gallup polls, approximately 40% of Americans identify themselves as independents...a group with no party to represent them as the two major parties engulf our system through a single member, winner takes all system that leaves only two parties as viable options. Bernie rallied many independents, but in error, he took his campaign within the establishment. Bernie stood no shot within the major democratic party that sets the rules and favors their own candidate. From Vox  "Until we fix our Byzantine ballot access system, our partisan electoral administrations, our campaign financing system, our inexplicably exclusive Commission on Presidential Debates, and a media fixated on horse-race politics, it is a myth that anyone can run — successfully — for president outside of the two parties." (Amato, 1)



State laws and campaign barriers prevent third parties from getting on the ballot. Even if enough signatures are gathered, lawsuits run by the establishment cost money and effort to get candidates off the ballot. Our system shames third party candidates, disenfranchising voters in the process. The two major parties, in there power to create rules, all but make it impossible. Bernie's only chances were to run outside the establishment, another nearly impossible feat. Until we can change our 2 party system, look for it to be impossible to create a viable third party candidate. Too many barriers are in place, the American people need to change from outside the box, not within. 

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11538742/ralph-nader-campaign-manager

Gary Johnson Poll Numbers

Really interesting poll numbers just came out. Libertarian Gary Johnson cracked double digits with 11% in a three way race with Clinton and Trump. Obviously there's no way he wins or anything but he'll probably be handing Clinton the presidency if he keeps polling that high. I think if he's able to still be getting over 10% when it comes time for the presidential debates he should be included. What do you guys think?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/

Trumps Tax Reform Doesn't Seem Too Bad

Honestly this election has been terrible, it's the first chance I've gotten in my life to vote for a presidential candidate, and I can't help but say is this all they have. I can think back to candidates like John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bush when I was much younger and would actually enjoy voting for one of them. Maybe I was just too young then to understand what was really going on. Regardless back to Trump, 50% of the revenue made from income tax comes tends to come from the highest bracket. He talked about how he also plans on adding additional taxes to members even higher on the bracket. Either way its the best idea I've seen from any of the candidates so far sadly. Lowering the burden on the poor, and lowering the range of the "rich". Hopefully by lowering the income to be in the bracket to be in the highest rate will cover the deductions he made.  He also plans on removing corporate deductions and loopholes as well as lowering their tax rate to 15%. Which seems like a terrible idea but hopefully that will help bring back corporations and ultimately jobs that have left here. If it doesn't he is also offering a discounted tax rate on money held overseas of 10%. There's an estimated $2.5 trillion in assets and cash overseas, if some of that actually came back, and wasn't just sitting it would surely help. Unfortunately this is what happens when your taxing people over 50% of their income, they just leave, or worse break the law.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ 

http://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes     

Who runs the world? - Social Media.

As I continue to work through the technology exercises and read through several blogs and social media sites I can't help but to think how much time is wasted through social media v how much useful information is put out through social media. What is it that we look for by using these sites? Is it just the facts that are easiest to find at the tip of our fingers, or is it crucial to how our political world revolves?

On a recent campaign I had the control of the candidates Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook page where I exposed events and stops made along the campaign trial. Soon I came to realize it was not only me that was always on my phone posting pictures and updates- but literally everyone we met with was doing the same, asking about what hashtags to use, or simply boasting about how many views, shares and likes. We used this information to not only gauge popularity, but to increase fundraising numbers, or to even act as a public invitation. Even when I was taking a picture of myself and my candidate, another reporter snapped a picture of us taking a picture to then post it on twitter. Social media has become and outlet of every step political operatives take of each long and telling day. I then took my experience and decided to see how the internet reacts to social medias involvement with politics. 

On an informative piece politico posted titled "How Social Media IS Ruining Politics" it tells about how we thrive on posts, and that popularity based on candidates is now based on social media- not about the actual policies or standings of a candidate. The article continues on to make the point that there were only two other times where politics have shifted in major ways where it has transformed elections. Once in the 1920's and once in the 1960's. In both instances it focusses on types of social media, or what would be considered social media back then. The 1920's thrived on radio, that some would argue disembodied candidates. The 1960's gave candidates air time on TV, getting into more sound bites and an image of an ideal candidate. Both correlate to focussing on characteristics of candidates that are more about reactions than about stances, or policy. 

In an article written by a research group at South University the critical need for social media on political campaigns is explained in depth. The one line that stood out to me was "Political campaigns connect with voters."  It goes on to read that even though candidates don't directly reply to voters questions, candidates still use mass social media to get messaging out- it contacts voters quickly and at a very low cost. 

This is where we have failed. I am sick of hearing how this election cycle is so messed up, and questioning the final 5 who are battling it out with less manors than a untrained house dog. We had the chance to make a change, we had the chance to make a difference, and we put all of our faith into social media. Something so unreliable and biased that even we are upset with how things have happened. Looking forward I believe it is not just social medias unwavering effect on people, but our ability to listen to everything that is online before actually digging for facts. Social media is at this point inevitable to our political practices- it is in this we must use them as a tool that helps us advance, rather than a way to argue our political points because its what was on a trending news feed. 

http://source.southuniversity.edu/political-campaigns-and-social-media-tweeting-their-way-into-office-106986.aspx

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/2016-election-social-media-ruining-politics-213104