US Presidential election and primaries: Sanders endorsement

The president of the US has significant power in regards to foreign policy, but his power domestically is limited to cheerleading for legislation, and blocking "bad" legislation.  The media is far more powerful than the US president on domestic issues because they can ridicule and ignore championing of causes, and pressure for "evil" causes.  The media and political establishment are controlled by agents who need you to accept evil that advantages their masters.

Independence from the political establishment is an important quality in a candidate.  But that only premits blocking evil from the political establishment's masters.  The other important quality in a presidential candidate is their thirst for power and warmongering.  Philosophical glimpses and attitudes and moral compass are the dominant qualification for president.

Obama 2008: Hope and Change
He ran a very progressive campaign, and voters assumed that universal healthcare was the goal/campaign promise.  Sanders' campaign is more progressive than Obama's.  HRC's less so.

Obama's campaign was also highly critical of Bush's warmongering and police powers.  Policies that HRC supported.

Obama Presidency
While the ACA is a progressive improvement over the state of healthcare prior to 2008, it was strongly influenced by compromise with the medical and insurance political establishment.

Obama's administration progressively normalized relations with Iran and Cuba.

The miltary and oil establishment
US middle east policy is primarily concerned with destabilizing the region, both to justify military budget and keep oil prices high (preventing oil production and investment through chaos).  This is aligned with Saudi Arabia's interests for the region, and their friendly US military purchases.

In this light, normalization of relations with Iran can contradict 40+ years of demonization, and non-humanist motives for doing so must be that Sunni control over middle east chaos is out of hand, and Iranian cooperation is seen as essential.  Anti-Syrian ramp up is primarily influenced by pipeline project proposals.

HRC has entirely internalized establishment's world policy views.  The difference between Republican and Democrat establishment view on world domination is overt aggressiveness vs passive-aggressiveness-coalitionism.  Obama's campaign had more independence than HRC, and it still turned into a relatively belligerent establishment administration.  It of course could have been much worse, and it would be somewhat worse with HRC.

Power breeds thirst for power
That police wish to have more power is a natural thirst.  Service to National power and security interests naturally leads to confusing every personal ambition with national ambition.  Indoctrination can drive corruption, but service to the establishment can't have an idiotic zombie defense.

HRC's psychiatric deficiency to be president
"Women have always been the greatest victims of war" is a statement only an extremely self centered psychotic can make.  It internalizes the importance of how other people's real suffering could affect one self and then replaces that moment of empathy as the central harm at issue.

In my global power ambitions, I would feel really bad if you had to die to serve them, but I also want my global power ambitions.   Crying at your funeral is a sacrifice I'd be willing to endure.  If I must instead submit to your presidency, then I am concerned about you defending my sacrifice with how sad it makes you that I must die.

HRC would be a better president than any republican
HRC has mirrored support for most of Sanders' domestic policies after Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.  Concern about her sincerity is valid above and beyond every politician's tendency to say what we want to hear.  She has never expressed anything thoughtful publicly.

Yet every republican presidential candidate would not block every stupid republican congressional idea proposed in the last 8 years, and she would block some of them.  She would still stop the most anti-social destruction of America all republicans aim to inflict.

Democratic establishment view on financial regulation
The Democratic party establishment's view on financial regulation has catered to financial lobbyists choice of their own punishment.  HFT (high frequency trading) is not an establishment practice, and a distraction issue.  Hedge funds while not providing any constructive value to the world are not destructive either.  They have little to do with the financial establishment, and so are the offered scape goats to sacrifice.  Financial transactions taxes are stupid ideas designed to sound tough while failing to pass legislative action due to they being stupid and giving republicans the opportunity to show they are stupid ideas.

HRC supported (prior to New Hampshire primary) extending the "vest time" for long term capital gains deductions.  This is clear coziness with the financial establishment, as these current tax incentives are already stock market supporting scams that trap investors into locking up their money with wealth management services through "tax carrots" and permit insider knowledge predictability of funds flows in their trading practices.

After New Hampshire, HRC proposed the essential progressive normalization of investment and employment income.  I have not heard Sanders agree.  This usefully raises significant revenue, equalizes investment return opportunities for non banks, closes fundamental loopholes in the tax code, returns excess corporate cash to the economy so that new good ideas or consumption can be funded, and is the first step to eliminating tax penalties for employment (corporate and personal tax rates must also be equalized).

Other effective financial industry regulation are maintaining or raising the reserve requirements to ensure low financial crisis risks (no need to explicitly break up banks, but a "too big to fail" premium on reserve requirements may incentivize those affected to restructure).  Instead of a transaction tax, an income surtax on financial profits (that applies to every company and investor) is an excellent revenue generator model, mitigates income inequality, and has absolutely no propensity to cause capital to be put under a mattress instead of invested.

It is irrelevant whether Sanders's financial regulation stump speech lacks workable policy details, or doesn't yet include the only effective proposed reform (made by HRC).  I trust that Sanders, after he is president, will listen to both the financial industry and progressives to find reform proposals that increase revenues and protect the financial system.  HRC is more likely to shift towards financial industry pocket proposals after the primary.  The financial coziness with the establishment is a disqualifying factor (except when considering HRC against republicans).

Oil and environmental establishment policy
Coziness with the oil industry is another disqualifying factor for HRC.  Obama is very much closer to Democratic establishment views on oil and climate change, than on progress:  Say progressive things, and do nothing, other than propose research grants to donors.  A carbon tax and dividend scheme is the only progressive solution to climate change.  Allows a higher tax, that necessarily better shapes behaviour, but returns the tax proceeds to citizens so that they can invest their own money in energy savings.  It permanently obviates the personal advantages of conservation, non-pollution, and mutual preservation instead of pointless hypocritical peer pressure while personally profiting from destruction.

Sanders is most likely to prevent inaction on climate change, and the most likely to be persuaded to adopt carbon tax and dividend policy, or end up with that compromise (compare to carbon tax and empire proposals).


Trump's establishment independence: Hitler or centrist?
 Trump's "Make Trump great again" campaign expresses childish views on "America as a sport team" that must run up the score on all others.  Its unclear whether it is more important to Trump that the US continues to dominate and control NATO and the UN, or that the US's minions pay more for the privilege of being dominated.  Someone would explain to him that belligerence is counter productive, we could think.

The US and its allies have the same monetary policy as Zimbabwe, and the explanation for their financial sustainability so far is cohesiveness and support from the private banking sector.  Too polarizing and belligerent a US president would risk lowering cohesiveness or reducing subservience.

Trump's establishment independence will either cause US economic and military influence to declline through alienation, or will make tough sounding international deals that make Trump look good and strong while giving away money and power in the fine print.  Its a very unpredictable outcome.  There is strong risk that bribery and kickbacks would be the purpose of his power ambitions.  It is fundamentally disqualifying to threaten opponents and their families with worse than waterboarding.

National socialist populism platform ensures domestic oppression if Trump gains the presidency.  International relations implications are too unpredictable, but its unfair to give him credit for belligerence being a mere opening negotiations statement.

Sanders for President
I am told that the explanation for HRC's polling strength with African Americans is their support for continuation of Obama policies and religious loyalty and values.

Religious loyalty in politics has made the state of race relations everything it is today.  It is a right wing manipulation tool.  The Pope has invited Sanders, not HRC, to speak at the Vatican.

President Sanders would try improve on Obama's progressiveness, and better address wealth inequality that I understand affects African Americans disproportionately.

While I disagree with the politics of jealousy that drive wealth inequality as a political issue, it is essential for economic growth that the successful are taxed more, and  that those tax proceeds are used for redistribution.  (The result though is not less wealth inequality, it is more spending, production and less poverty).  Sander's openness to UBI creates the opportunity for compromise with those opposed to using taxation to fund leftist empire.

Republican Job Destruction
 Politicians pandering to job creation is a goto stump point.  Tax cuts have the opposite effects though:  It lowers corporate spending incentives, and less redistribution lowers consumer spending which further lowers corporate spending/investment.  The biggest problem with republicans is the complete disconnect with productivity advances that continuously reduce the future need for menial labour.  Sure, driving down wages to match China, then Vietnam, then Gabon by increasing the pressures that make submission/slavery a rational voluntary choice, essentially forcing labour through limiting alternatives to coercion, can increase labour participation slightly.  But aggregate wealth is increased by productivity advances and redistribution.

Tarrifs aren't job creators either as the domestic manufacturing starts that do occur are heavily automated, and a 40% cost increase on imported goods might make Apple US made iphone and computers $200 to $500 more expensive, or $50 to $100 more if just assembly of US models is done here.  But assembly work would most likely be done through Chinese imported robots.

(Useless) Job creation and job protection is the wrong policy.  Tax those fortunate enough to have work income to redistribute to (UBI) those who do not so that they both support production through consumption and can find meaningful opportunities of their own.