What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

D B wrote: Actually the polls show him beating Trump by 6% vs Clinton's 2.8% realclearpolitics.com/epoll… realclearpolitics.com/epoll… The more people know about Sanders, the more they like him. The more people know about Clinton, the more they dislike her. We'll see what happens. Bill only won one of the first 12 primaries, so Bernie is in much better shape than him.

I hate say to say it, because I'm not really a Trump fan, but given the other options...

At the very least he would radically shake things up in Washington, for better or worse. Because the status quo definitely sucks...

D B wrote:We're already paying for a living wage, essentially, through welfare. We're subsidizing companies who don't pay their employees enough to live on.

Yeah I really don't get when people go crazy after the first mention of "socialism". The government is already giving away tons of free money--just to corporations and investors instead of people who probably need it more. I also think it's ridiculousl to call universal healthcare and tuition financially impossible when countries with lower GDP per capita can do it.

I mostly just want a candidate who doesn't change their policies periodically based on what corporation is financing their campaign.

As for the topic, I guess I'm biased but I think Sanders is really the only one who has shown an interest in protecting the environment, although that doesn't say much about public lands access..

Stagg54 wrote: I hate say to say it, because I'm not really a Trump fan, but given the other options... At the very least he would radically shake things up in Washington, for better or worse. Because the status quo definitely sucks...

Idk, I think people like Trump (the mega rich) *are* the status quo, no? Making him POTUS just eliminates the middle man.

D B wrote: Actually the polls show him beating Trump by 6% vs Clinton's 2.8% realclearpolitics.com/epoll… realclearpolitics.com/epoll… The more people know about Sanders, the more they like him.

Reverse was true for me. The additional $2Trillion (cited by his own web page) he wants to spend per year (50% increase in federal spending) is referred to as laughable by even Paul Krugman, who is pretty much a champion of federal spending and 'Keynesian Multipliers' calls it laughable.
That and every single thing he talks about (even the race war) he boils down to something that the ultra-rich started to hide their wealth. I can't find a single issue he doesn't try to take to the class war table. I used to think of him as compassionate, now I think of him as a conspiracy-theorist.

As for is Sanders good for climbers? Nah - elect him and nobody will have the cash to go climbing. We most certainly won't have "18 choices of (climbing) sneakers to choose from." (Grin - that's called a throw-back).

D B wrote: That website is showing improper payments, which includes fraud as well as bureaucratic incompetence.

Certainly a valid point regarding the difference between deliberate fraud and simply keeping and cashing a check/transfer that doesn't belong to you.

D B wrote: I'd say 91% using the system correctly is a success.

If I lost 9% of my business to shoplifting, intentional or not, I'd feel pretty bad about it, and probably go out of business. Either that or just have to charge 10% extra (overprice) every thing I sold.

D B wrote: 3-20% for Medicare/Medicaid (which I don't care about personally, everyone should have Medicare)

Uh, everyone? Please not me. I'll keep my insurance. I've seen Medicare/Medicaid. While it is better than the VA, it's certainly not what I am looking for.
And I do care if it is 10% fraud or whatever you want to call it. 10% of $1.1Trillion is a lot of money. So I care.

But as to the point that you can't fix the budget by fixing fraud, we 100% agree that this is true. A balanced budget would show the price tag of what we actually get. Perhaps then, provided that it is not distorted/manipulated to hide the costs of certain programs, we could have a real and informed (most people are not) discussion about what to tax more for or cut down.

J Marsella wrote:Think of the climbing possibilities on the mexico/america wall!

Ha!

reboot wrote: Voting is about exercising your right. Your vote will not change the outcome of a presidential election, but that does not mean it has no impact. Sheeps pick the lesser of 2 evils.

Seriously? Folks said that to justify voting for Nader in 2000. You do know how that went down, right?

Bernie Sanders!

D B wrote: Plenty disagree with Krugman (who is a Clinton supporter, of course he's going to disagree with Sanders) Not exactly. He considers a lot of issues to be a problem of campaign finance. The rich can throw as much money at politicians as they want, through campaign donations, lobbying, and gifts, and as a result, can influence them into enacting policies that are good for the rich, and maybe not so much for the poor. It's the overarching theme of our political system. And the race war (drug war), is absolutely a part of that. Prisons and the anti-drug crusade are highly profitable. Watch The House We Live In if you're interested.

I disagree with Krugman on pretty much everything, so not a hard sell there.
In terms of the campaign finance, that's evidence to what I am saying, not in contrast. It's still more of him bringing everything down to a class war.

You'd think a Jew in particular might have a longer memory of what happens when you take everything in a society down to a particular sub-class of people that produce all financial and social ills. The Germans had their 'banksters' in their depression as well. They blamed it broadly on a class of people that accounted more more than "1%" but they did lay everything at that doorstep. The populace bought the story eagerly and millions died.

D B wrote: It's the overarching theme of our political system. And the race war (drug war), is absolutely a part of that. Prisons and the anti-drug crusade are highly profitable. Watch The House We Live In if you're interested.

I know a lot more about the criminal justice system than you might think and have been involved with it, politically, economically, and legislatively for a very long time.
Yes, it is corrupted. More by the workers unions and politicians than from the super rich influencing it.
I'm just not sure why someone who is actively calling out the corruption of such government systems would advocate for a 50% increase in teh size of government.

Pnelson wrote: Seriously? Folks said that to justify voting for Nader in 2000. You do know how that went down, right?

Without Perot, we won't get the 1st Clinton either. But do you really want a Clinton/Trump ticket? How about Bush/Kerry in 2004? How are you going to get either party to pay attention when you keep sheepishly voting for their chosen one?

The established parties want you to vote one or the other, but truth is your individual vote doesn't change the outcome of a presidential election, especially if you are not in a swing state. It does, however, add to the legitimacy of the 2 party system.

socialism is a farce. For people not to understand why people are petrified of the thought of socialism, they don't understand what made this country the most successful country in the history of the world. I personally do not want to give any money to people who don't work for what they want. If you want an education-work for it. If you want to go climb-work for it. If you want a good job-work your butt off and don't expect a freebie.

If you want to be able to afford to go climbing, not only access to climbs you definitely should not vote for sanders.

As an aside-Sanders pays his interns $12 an hour-hes a hypocrite for his "living wage" policy. Makes you question his commitments.

DB wrote "The more people know about Sanders, the more they like him." This is definitely not me or so many of the people I associate with. He has accomplished nothing in his life. The more I know of him, the more I dislike him.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/568208/bernie-sanders-wants-mandate-15-minimum-wage--but-only-pays-interns-12

How on earth, did working class people start thinking like owners of industry. Shit got confused. Faux News wins again. How else are you going to get rich white males fearful of anything? Especially men in hoods. There has to be a little sweet irony in that.

It would be best if Sanders got prez, and it's gets more obvious the the more education you have, especially for people who appreciate the outdoors such as climbers. Maybe he will do what he says that he would do for the last 30 years. Maybe he is waiting for his chance to sell out, who the fuck knows. We can put your trust in consistency, or you can put your trust in a foreigner, a nimrod, a liar, or a crook. Those are your choices.

To be honest, it's pretty obvious that Trump is your new Fuhrer, ain't shit you can do about it. That's how oligarchy's work.

J Q wrote:How on earth, did working class people start thinking like owners of industry. Shit got confused. Faux News wins again. How else are you going to get rich white males fearful of anything? Especially men in hoods. There has to be a little sweet irony in that. It would be best if Sanders got prez, and it's gets more obvious the the more education you have, especially for people who appreciate the outdoors such as climbers. Maybe he will do what he says that he would do for the last 30 years. Maybe he is waiting for his chance to sell out, who the fuck knows. We can put your trust in consistency, or you can put your trust in a foreigner, a nimrod, a liar, or a crook. Those are your choices. To be honest, it's pretty obvious that Trump is your new Fuhrer, ain't shit you can do about it. That's how oligarchy's work.

How much education do you think is the baseline for the obvious Sanders revelation?

I want to know who is going to pull off the first girdle traverse of the Mexico Wall. Perhaps our country's first grade VIII?

D B wrote: We'll see what happens. Bill only won one of the first 12 primaries, so Bernie is in much better shape than him.

After his thrashing in SC, Bernie is done.

It's Clinton v. Trump.

I wish I owned Mountain Project...

Political topic threads would disappear faster than a carabiner dropped from the middle of the Salathe headwall...

The threads just divide us more and are rife with bigotry from both sides...

Colin R wrote:None. Period. They all suck for different reasons...

Sad that these are the best candidates anyone could come up with.
Clinton vs. Trump? Canada looking better every day....

Arlo F Niederer wrote:I wish I owned Mountain Project... Political topic threads would disappear faster than a carabiner dropped from the middle of the Salathe headwall... The threads just divide us more and are rife with bigotry from both sides...

Maybe somebody should start up "Political Project."

Bernie's campaign ad is totally relevant to this discussion:

youtube.com/watch?v=qR7fHoP…

I dont think any of the candidates would have an effect on climbing, nor do any of them appear to have any position on the issue. With the many problems going on in America, climbing far too small of an issue for the president to be concerned with. This is an issue that is managed more at the local level than the national level.