Supporting Clinton means you believe the country needs to move to the right

[Doctor_J]

Supporting Sanders mean you believe the country needs to move to the left.

that's basically the choice, correct?

[Agschmid]

1. No.

[mindwalker_i]

37. Yes

[rhett o rick]

47. Apparently you don't understand the desperate fighting going on between

The Progressive Wing and The Clinton Wing. WE ARE NOT PULLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION no matter how hard you want to believe.

Here is a partial list of what we are fighting for. What is the other side fighting for?

We are fighting for the American children, 2,500,000 homeless, 16,000,000 in poverty, 16,000,000 more living in low income homes, as well as the highest infant mortality rate of all modern countries.

We are fighting for the 4,000,000 homeless and 50,000,000 living in poverty.

We are fighting to save our family members from death and being wounded in the neocon's wars for profits.

We are fighting to save SS and Medicare that Wall Street wants to cut.

We are fighting for better health care for all Americans.

We are fighting to save our drinking water from the pollution for oil profits.

We are fighting to reduce the numbers of Americans imprisoned for profits.

We are fighting to spend our tax dollars on infrastructure in lieu of war machines that don't work.

We are fighting the Oligarchy made up of Citibank, Goldman-Sachs, Koch Bros, and all that would allow them to continue to loot the 99% of wealth and resources.

We are not on the same side.

[Agschmid]

88. Apparently you know nothing about me.

[Unicorn]

113. +1

[Demsrule86]

128. You are fighting for no one...

if you allow a GOP to win and nominate five justices, not to mention having all three branches of government. So please, you are fighting for your idol, Bernie Sanders...I don't see how your actions benefit others at this moment.

[rhett o rick]

137. If you support Clinton then you are "allowing" Trump to win. Sanders is much stronger against

the Republicons but you don't seem to care. It's all about higher profits for Wall Street. You and I are not on the same side in this class war.

[Demsrule86]

149. Absolutely untrue

The Republicans are desperate for a Bernie candidacy...they know Americans will not vote for a socialist and don't understand what a Democratic socialist is. The will swiftboat Bernie into the second coming of Stalin. I have seen polls where Clinton beats Trump in a landslide. Pick your poll. However, the by how we do things in this party, Hillary has won. That's all folks. I live in Ohio and Bernie loses Ohio. This state would never vote for him. As we saw in 04, Ohio is a very important state.

[rhett o rick]

153. This is a class war and I will not support the Wealthy Class.

Clinton is beholden to the Billionaires. They gave her millions, tens of millions and quid pro quo is a real thing.

How many children have to become homeless (2.5 million now), or live in poverty (16 million now) or low income homes (16 million now) before you realize that siding with the Oligarchy is wrong.

[Demsrule86]

154. I am sure Trump will care deeply

about homeless children and the poor in general. Do you realize that the Gop has literally starved kids via the house...and electing Trump will empower them?

[rhett o rick]

155. That's exactly why I support Sanders. He is our only hope. Goldman-Sachs cares as little about

homeless children as Trump. We got where we are today because people trusted the Conservative Democrats that wave some social justice in front of them and steal their wallets.

I say we must draw the line now and not wait and see how many more children become homeless before we fight.

[creeksneakers2]

178. Hillary started working for children

back in her first days in Arkansas.

[rhett o rick]

186. But she supports the growing wealth gap that is litterally killing children in poverty.

“Far from resisting the emergence of the new caste system, Clinton escalated the drug war beyond what conservatives had imagined possible a decade earlier. As the Justice Policy Institute has observed, “the Clinton Administration’s ‘tough on crime’ policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.”99 Clinton eventually moved beyond crime and capitulated to the conservative racial agenda on welfare. This move, like his “get tough” rhetoric and policies, was part of a grand strategy articulated by the “new Democrats” to appeal to the elusive white swing voters. In so doing, Clinton—more than any other president—created the current racial undercaste. He signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which “ended welfare as we know it,” replacing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, as well as a permanent, lifetime ban on eligibility for welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—including simple possession of marijuana.”
― Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow

[creeksneakers2]

191. She doesn't support a wealth gap

Nobody supports a wealth gap. We all wish nobody had to be poor.

We lost 3 presidential elections in a row before Clinton won. We lost 5 of the last 6. In 1994 the GOP retook the House of Representatives. As much as progressive hate triangulation, the only alternative to it was losing to the GOP, who would have done far more to eliminate public assistance. Pragmatism is hard for progressives to understand. They often mistake it for indifference or corruption.

[Baobab]

198. read this

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725



This is about all of them

they are irreversible

[Baobab]

197. Not only is her claimed role in SCHIP disputed, the fact is its backwards

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/?page=full

A 1995 Clinton trade deal actually signed SCHIP's death warrant

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725

[creeksneakers2]

208. What death warrant?

SCHIP is still there.

". On January 14, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2 on a vote of 290-138. The bill authorized spending and added $32.8 billion to expand the health coverage program to include about 4 million more children, including coverage of legal immigrants[47] with no waiting period for the first time"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program

[Baobab]

209. Under Standstill

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/54-ufins_e.htm

[Baobab]

210. its discussed here, insurance is a financial service, when it globalizes the ACA will be rolled back

to January 1998

Standstill, remember.

[Baobab]

211. #1 is a smoking gun. Its an outline of TiSA - declassified

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf

---

These are context- its a trade -

http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/Invest/sub_invest-W39.htm

http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm

[creeksneakers2]

212. Protectionist have been spreading

this kind of paranoia at least as far back as NAFTA. Only 17 cases were brought since then challenging public authority in the U.S. The U.S. won all 17 cases.

They say TPP contains language that would make challenges more effective, but we haven't seen a final TPP yet.

[Baobab]

213. You're lying, and so is Hillary, its a global coup.

Global coup against us, against democracy.

[sweetapogee]

214. I have a difficult time believing

that most DUers who are now saying that they will not vote for candidate X because they support candidate Y and will stay home on election day. Being the fighter you are you will not sit in the barracks while Trump gets all the votes. So why say it?

[salinsky]

2. Wrong. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

138. Music Night: Utopia's Swing to the Right (A Ronald Reagan protest song)

.

Swing to the right
Try to face the fact that I ain't that young no more
Hair's short again and a suit is in,
Better brush up on how to tie a Windsor knot
Swing to the right
Credit's hard to find and a dollar doesn't go so far
What's more important when the count comes in
A sell-out who's alive or a corpse that can't be bought?

Stop the hands of time
Think I see a sign
Tables turning 'round
Hear a different sound
Stop the hands of time
Looking out for mine

Swing to the right
Don't want to hear what the povertous expect from me
Let 'em eat cake if they feel that way
I gotta work, why should I have to pay for that?
Swing to the right
And I don't want to be left holding the bag for them
'S'causee me for living but I have to say,
I've got some worries of my own, like staying fat

Stop the hands of time
Think I see a sign
Tables turning 'round
Hear a different sound
Stop the hands of time
Looking out for mine

.

[Baobab]

187. This deal will definitey increase the wealth gap *here*. In fact, thats acknowledged by experts

http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf

[Skinner]

3. It's like you have a window into my own thoughts.

Uncanny.

[sufrommich]

11. Lol.nt

[corkhead]

52. did you know this site has a

thingy available for use 24/7?

[angrychair]

60. there is a bigger picture here

People can whine and complain about this or that point but by Clinton's own admission she is a "moderate centrist". That is to the right of a significant number of Democrats and Independents. While the OP may have been bluntly stated, it is, at its core, still true.

At the end of the day, for me, it's not specifically about Sanders but the ideals he represents. It is the attack on those ideals, ideals that are central to my identity as a Democrat, that has been so disheartening.

Members of this site, in defense of their candidate, have gone way over the top. Yes, there have been personal attacks against Sanders and Clinton, that have gone to far. That, while troublesome, is not the worst component of this primary season. It was the attacks, by Clinton supporters, on what I consider core Democratic values, by overzealous supporters, in their attempts to demean, insult or counterattack a Sanders supporter or Sanders himself.
Humiliating and shaming poor and struggling people for only wanting "free stuff". The trade and trafficking in pure right-wing "free stuff" memes was the most disappointing. Making disingenuous claims about taxes and complaining that they don't want their taxes to go up to give poor and struggling people "free stuff" is not a core Democratic value.

Lastly, while many complain about sources, there has been more than once that a DUer has used anti Semitic, neo-Nazi, holocaust denying hate sites and their batshit crazy conspiracy theories, to attack a Democratic Jewish candidate on a Democratic website. The fact that we do not remove these type of OPs is disgusting and disappointing.

[ret5hd]

130. We know.

[aikoaiko]

206. Do you really think she is philosophically to the left of Obama? And will goven that way?

What would make you think so?

[djean111]

4. Yup.

Except, in Clinton's case, I don't feel like "left" and "right" are even in the equation - seems more like Hillary's turn, and Hillary must win, more than the direction the country will go. "Lesser evil" seems to sum it up. Perfectly.

[Frances]

18. Refusing to vote for the lesser evil is what turned the country on the march to where we are today

I remember people in California who refused to vote for Brown when Ronald Reagan ran against him for governor.

So Ronald Reagan became governor, which paved the way for him to become President

If Hillary becomes the Dem nominee and you refuse to vote for her because you think she's the lesser of two evils, then you will be enabling Trump

And if you think the country won't suffer far more under Trump than Hillary, I think you are being unrealistic.

And the country will go further right even if Trump is a miserable President.

The best bet to prevail against the right is to get the best Dem we can and push that Dem left. That is so much easier than attempting to push the country left if Trump is president or when Reagan was president. I know because I remember the Reagan years.

[djean111]

22. You could not push Hillary left with the biggest bulldozer in the world.

Since when is an enthusiast of war and fracking and the TPP and means-testing Social Security a Democrat?

[HooptieWagon]

32. Since when do Democrats embrace Kissinger and Kagan,....

...and team up with Koch money to drag the party rightward?

[djean111]

34. Oh, I know.....obscene, isn't it.

I cannot participate any longer.

[Andy823]

100. Then why do you come here

Day after day and post negative things? I am sure you are a member of that site where all the DU haters have gone, the one that "claims" they want to get Bernie elected. I would think you would be trying your best to do just that, elect Bernie, not come here day in and day out and bash Hillary knowing full well you aren't changing anyones mind here. Seems like a waste of time, time you could be spending working to actually get Bernie elected on his merits.

[bettyellen]

164. it's like Ginsburg and Scalia- what a horrible SCJ she is because they are friends- right?

You guys sound like you are in HS with this guilt by association BS.

[synergie]

78. She is already Left, needs no pushing.

Since when have those Bernie created smears been true of her? He is the one enthusiastically voting for war (regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to support the MIC when it suits him), the one invested in fracking personally, and in dumping nuclear waste into poor communities, and who does not actually understand trade agreements, but lies fluently about his opponents positions because he know his fans do not ever do their homework and have been primed by the RW to believe any lie he and his wife tell about her.

[Baobab]

188. GATS and its ilk are driving the last three

seriously. End the FTAs and the rest will become possible. Same with health care. Read the paper linked in my .sig.

[libdem4life]

119. News flash. .. Bernie beats Trump by a wider margin.

This meme is unintelligent and lacks facts.

[Maedhros]

183. The conservative Democratic Establishment thanks you for buying their propaganda for full price.

The reason the country is where we are today is because the Democrats abandoned Labor and sided with corporate management. This was done because of you and the legions of Democratic rank-and-file voters who rubber-stamped the Party's rightward leap.

Consider the spectrum of politics:

Progressives - - - - - - - - - X - - - - - - - - - - Democrats - - - O - - Republicans

You, and those who buy the propaganda along with you, are forcing the political battlefield to exist at the 'O'.

What Progressives need to do is force the battlefield to be at the 'X'.

Otherwise, we guarantee that the future will suck. What happens when we consider the long-term effects of your strategy? What will we be fighting over in 2024? 2032? 2040? How far right will your strategy have pushed the battlefield? You are making the same mistake that Corporate America makes: obsessing over next quarter's returns, without considering the long-term health of the venture.

I see no merit in your plan, which is essentially:

1. Elect ever more conservative Democrats.

2. ???

3. Progressive government!

[Baobab]

199. while she claimed to be fighting for affordable healthcare, they were actually starting a waragainst

it. That lasts to this day. Against all public services- for corporations

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725

For example, all services where some money is taken, have to be privatized, so they dont steal the market from corporations.

Thats the truth of what she stands for, the inconvenient, unpleasant truth. So unpleasant they have to hide it, and I doubt if you will even see this message.

http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf?sfvrsn=2

https://www.citizen.org/documents/Health%20Care%20Memo.pdf

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf?sfvrsn=0

http://thewire.in/2015/12/14/its-not-wise-to-trade-in-higher-education-17295/

http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/2659

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/occupy-ugc-smriti-irani-higher-education-modi-government-wto-gats-chennai-hrd-ministry-digital-india/story/1/7891.html

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/will-the-gats-close-on-higher-education/article8042337.ece

[StevieM]

27. Hillary doesn't have to win....she just is winning. Nobody said she had to.

There were other candidates to vote for--they just didn't win.

Hillary started the race with big poll numbers. Nobody handed them to her because "it was her turn." She just earned them. And then, of course, she lost a lot of them. That is fairly common in a primary as the race progresses.

But her huge early poll numbers didn't stop four different people from seeking the presidential nomination along side her. Perhaps it would have been more had she not held such an early lead in the polls. But that has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement, it's about what led people to chose to run or not run.

In the end, five candidates was not an insanely low number, it was perfectly reasonable. Two of them struggled early and dropped out, leaving Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. Martin O'Malley was a major contender, having been discussed as a future presidential candidate for the past 15 years, going back to when he was mayor of Baltimore. But in this race Sanders and Clinton seemed to outshine him, so they were the finalists and he wasn't.

Most elections come down to two finalists, like Bush and McCain in 2000 and Clinton and Obama in 2008. This race came down to a clear choice between Clinton and Sanders. By a somewhat narrow margin the people preferred Clinton. Some of them like her, others might not be comfortable with Bernie. Either way, she got their votes. She earned them. She didn't have to--she just did.

[djean111]

29. The thing is, it all comes down to, for me - if a Democrat is for war and fracking and the TPP and

cluster bombs and means-testing Social Security - things like that - then - I must not be a Democrat. I accept that, and will vote/not vote accordingly. Kind of freeing, really, realizing that the Democratic Party has gone so far the the right that I cannot follow. Less stressful than trying to justify how I was supposed to vote, when my beliefs are so different than what the Party has become. Really, no sarcasm intended.

[Frances]

45. Congratulations

You have the luxury of being a purist

You must feel you would be safe at a Trump rally

You must feel it won't matter to you if Trump is elected because you won't have to worry about bullies being encouraged to target POC, immigrants, gays, anyone who is "different"

There are many, many people who will be in physical danger because of Trump's rhetoric if he is elected President. There will be no recourse in the Courts because Trump will appoint judges who share his views. And Trump will help elect those who share his views to Congress.

And you will say that you had nothing to do with this. I just beg to disagree.

[That Guy 888]

71. Back at you

You must live in a very nice NIMBY community where industrial air pollution isn't in your air, and frack water won't end up coming out of your tap.

You and/or your partner must have a job unaffected by outsourcing or H1B visas

You must not care in the least that foreign workers in the US are paid less than their American-born coworkers and are often treated like indentured servants who must stay at a bad job or face deportation

You must not care about the members of the armed forces(or their families) who will pay the price for Clinton's war hawk policies.

You must really miss the Cold War, to support a candidate who wants to be much, much more confrontational when dealing with Putin.

There are many people who won't have clean drinking water around the world because Clinton has pushed hard for fracking around the planet. There will be no recourse for them either. There will be no recourse for workers when Clinton appoints business friendly judges who share her views and disdain for poor people. Clinton will help elect more Third-Way conserva-dems, and toadies personally loyal to her.

And you will say it's a great thing that all the liberals have been properly marginalized or are driven from the party. And I'll disagree with that.

[Newkularblue]

111. This ^

[NorthCarolina]

151. +1000 nt

[StevieM]

58. I don't think the military will be any more active under Clinton than it was under Obama.

I don't see means-testing of Social Security in the works. Fracking is already happening but Clinton will continue to build the renewable energy infrastructure. And she has said that she is against TPP, at least as it is currently written.

How is any of this different then President Obama? I fail to see why you think she will move the country to the right when there really isn't too much difference between them. It was the same way eight years ago. Clinton haters were convinced that she and Obama were as different as night and day, but I didn't actually hear this difference when Hillary and Barack talked about their policy positions.

One more thing. If Clinton is elected then we get Garland confirmed and Ginsberg and Breyer replaced by like-minded justices. That means that we can get Citizens United overturned. And perhaps we can overturn some of the voter suppression methods that the GOP has turned to.

[floriduck]

62. How is she different than Obama? One word: Libya! mm

[djean111]

70. First of all, Hillary traveled the world, shilling for the TPP, and praised it in her most recent

book as the Gold Standard. She is just not being truthful on this, is the kindest thing I can say.

Second, she waffled when asked about fracking. Bernie said no. I believe Hillary is firmly in the camp that says no fracking or pipelines in rich neighborhoods. That's all.
And I honestly believe that, under Hillary, we would just see more nuclear reactors, because those are the money-makers.

Social Security - Bernie says that yes, not enough to live on for many people, and also to lift the cap. Hillary said she would take from the top Social Security recipients and give that to the bottom. IMO that is the camel's nose under the tent, no one should be means tested. Then again, she is Third Way and Third Way wants to get rid of Social Security. I also think she will move to privatize part of Social Security. Huge fees for Wall Street buddies there. And hedge fund managers. Bill was going to do just that, working with Newt, until Monica showed up in the papers, and then it was only put off because it was bad optics. The Clintons are a tag team. Hillary will go for it.

That is how I feel, I do not feel I am mistaken. We all should do what feels right. Hillary does not feel right. I am going by what she has done and said in the past. Currently, she is just spouting campaign blather.

[Baobab]

202. Secret trade pact to vastly increase fracking, irreversibly, block local law+export it till its gone

No fracking way: How the EU-US trade agreement risks expanding fracking

[Phlem]

63. Holy shit, if your a purist I must be Jesus Fucking Christ!

[synergie]

79. Then why do you support Bernie? He is for war, for fracking, for dumping

Nuclear waste in poor communities, etc. etc. I guess believing things not based in reality is freeing, means you can justify not doing your homework or voting in an election that terrifies the rest if the world worried about an idiot Republucan becoming president, since that worked so great last time.

[Rebkeh]

56. Two of most HATED people in the country are front runners to be president

The only reason this is so is because the people pulling the strings want it to be so. Especially the media, nobody else benefits from this match up.

It's not that complicated.

[Buzz Clik]

5. No.

The difference in "leftiness" between Clinton and Sanders is kinda like the difference between an alligator and a crocodile. There's a difference, but it's not what defines either creature.

[ucrdem]

12. :-D

[BlindTiresias]

124. That doesn't make any sense

They are in the same order but are entirely different animals.

[Buzz Clik]

125. That's the point.

[BlindTiresias]

136. But the difference is exactly what defines the creature.

You seem deeply confused about how taxonomy works.

[dawg]

6. Nothing ...

is ever that simple.

[Orsino]

7. It's more of a "little change needed" option.

Or a "just please not a Republican" choice.

[ucrdem]

8. No.

You're welcome.

[uponit7771]

9. purity

[Doctor_J]

17. Actually it's the exact opposite of purity

Both are running as Dems, both consider themselves Dems, yet their vision for the country is much different. the choice is between two ideologies, not parties.

[uponit7771]

20. sanctimonious?

[Beowulf]

38. Bullshit?

[blm]

10. I voted Sanders to move WH left of Obama. I see HRC as continuing Obama, and I'd rather

have that than GOP's full on fascist agenda again in control of the WH. Some don't. Many of us do and will support Dem ticket - period.

I also think Obama would have been better able to implement more left policies if he didn't have the unprecedented level of obstruction from Republicans.

This is why GOTV is such an important role for those of us on the left. There IS a huge difference - ask those of us Dems in North Carolina who are witnessing decades of progress in this state being devastated DAILY thanks to the US Supreme Court and GOP policies.

[LiberalFighter]

25. The key necessary for either Democratic candidate

is support for other candidates in Congress and even at the state level.

[Dawgs]

41. So, eight more years of nothing getting done is enough for you.

Got it.

[blm]

46. Horsepoo. GOTFV if you demand MORE to be done. If you want to complain and

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

point fingers then sit around and keep praising your pure self who also didn't get anything done while GOP controlled congress and senate and SUPREME EFFING COURT.

FVCK the 'no difference' crowd.

When We Forget
Donald Trump will rise, and keep rising, until we remember what came before.
BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
APR 29, 2016

In Lenin's Tomb, his lucid account of the end of Soviet Russia, David Remnick uses as an epigraph a famous quote from Czech author Milan Kundera. "The struggle of man against power," Kundera wrote, "is the struggle of memory against forgetting." The philosophy was central to Remnick's contention throughout the book that one of the critical weaknesses of the Soviet state, and of all of its satellite governments in Eastern Europe, including Kundera's Czechoslovakia, was that it required its citizens to fight against their own memory, to unknow what they clearly knew. Sooner or later, the effort to forget and to unknow becomes too much of a burden for too many people and they force the collapse of the system. Humans are driven to remember. Humans can crack from the effort it takes to deny and to forget. The consequences can be therapeutic or they can be catastrophic, for people and for the political societies into which they organize themselves.

This is as true of liberal democracies as it is true of authoritarian states. In fact, the effects of forgetting can be worse in the former, because citizens of authoritarian states see the effects of forgetting and unknowing in every transaction in their daily lives. In liberal democracies, and especially in this one, there are so many distractions and so many options and so much media that the corrosive effects of the loss of the power of memory can elude anyone's notice until something important comes apart all at once.
>>>>>

[Dawgs]

69. You're right. It's my fault the party has moved to the right of Nixon.

Bad me.

[blm]

72. You certainly felt comfortable to be accusatory of me, though, didntcha?

Did the mirror bother you?

[Dawgs]

74. My problem was not with your accusation. n/t

[blm]

75. "Eight more years of nothing getting done is enough for you" you accused.

Yeah…..no judging there, eh?

[Dawgs]

77. Again. I don't have a problem with YOUR accusation. n/t

[Turin_C3PO]

116. Yes!

Your post is a perfect example of my thinking. I felt like I was alone here lol.

[blm]

118. There are more of us...some DU old-timers are waiting to come back here

and they will…..soon as GD-P closes down.

[musicblind]

141. I'm with you guys too. I was thinking I was the only one on here.

I voted for Sanders in the primary and I do intend to vote for Hillary in the general. And the way you described your voting is exactly my thought process. I was happy with Obama and I see Hillary as a continuation of that. I would be happier with a more liberal Obama and I saw Sanders as an opportunity for that.

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination, that in no way changes whether I am happy with Obama and a continuation of his policies. Could I be happier? Of course. Everyone should strive for perfection. But don't ever let perfect get the way of good. After all, who is ever truly perfect?

[blm]

156. Heh - we could start a whole thread on your post.

I'll bet your words could bring out scores of us.

[LexVegas]

13. No. nt

[riderinthestorm]

14. No, I believe climate change is upon us. For me its @ whose going to be most aggressively proactive

Immediately from day 1.

Left v right is irrelevant in that scenario.

[BootinUp]

15. Hillary has a very good grasp on both what needs to be done AND

what is politically possible. That's why I have supported her all along. I would also strongly suggest that her economic vision and social policy vision has been more liberal than her detractors have tried to paint her. On foreign policy I see her as very similar to her husband, but the hard part of making the analysis is due to how fucked up things were after 2 terms of Dubya.

[Dawgs]

44. Um, she voted for Dubya's Iraq war. It cost us trillions and was the dumbest decision in decades.

That one decision alone should disqualify her on economics and foreign policy.

[BootinUp]

49. Its a nice anti-hillary slogan

but lacks truth. I certainly won't waste any more posts in this thread on it.

[Dawgs]

68. Great Argument.

Bye!

[Doctor_J]

114. And has supported 4-5 more military actions since then.

I'd like a Hillarian to tell me on what issues she will move the country to the left. I haven't seen any in this thread

[Demsrule86]

129. So did Kerry

And no one said a word.

[Doctor_J]

146. We didn't have a choice in 04

And over the last eight years, mrs Clinton has supported four more wars/coups, torture, and cluster bombs. Next ridiculous sound bite?

[Demsrule86]

147. Yes we did.

Howard Dean...who was great. We have no choice now unless you want a Gop type to win. Hillary is the nominee.

[NorthCarolina]

152. I so sick of hearing about the "what is politically possible" canard.

It's called the bully pulpit and a LEADER raising public awareness in support of an issue.

[timmymoff]

159. Politically impossible is another way of saying to scared to fight for something.

[BootinUp]

160. No, its a way to understand Bernie's lackluster history in Congress. nt

[timmymoff]

163. yes, he really screwed up on the iraq war vote

also the bankruptcy bill. He doesn't seek the limelight of supporting trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. He didn't quietly lobby the passing of the Colombian free trade agreement while voting against it, he just voted against it. Bernie has and will continue to be an effective legislator, even moreso, now he has a platform in which to speak. But hey, Hillary's awesome votes for post offices and Iraq war really showed us leadership. and her regime change policies are spot on. lol .

[BootinUp]

166. I should have said Bernie AND the "progressive" wing's lack of achievements

The correct answer to your overstatements and misinterpretations of politics is that it really does take moderate uplifting messages to win elections. The chances of Bernie or a similar future candidate winning a national election or a clone of Trump winning for the other side is remote. It is a valid reason to plan policy platforms and election campaigns, it doesn't mean they aren't fighting for the same issues it means they are fighting for them in best way possible based on politics 101.

Or in the case of a huge terror attack, it requires that elected politicians and parties attempt to work with the other side for national security. Cheney cornered the Democrats in '02. You can say well, they were scared for their job OR you can say they protected their constituents from losing all power in the next election. The only reason Clinton's vote on the IWR was a mistake was because she took *'s word on inspections being followed through. It wasn't a mistake to force Iraq to allow the inspections. And it wasn't a mistake to think about the cost of more pukes in Congress or the Senate for not taking action to get inspectors in Iraq.

You need to take a peek outside the bubble and get some perspective.

[timmymoff]

167. A Hillary supporter claiming I am in a bubble is funny and tragic

at the same time. Look at what working together got us after 9/11 .. was it an Iraq war? How did Hillary vote? We also got monitoring of our library check outs, monitoring of our phone usage, surveillance everywhere. Do not attempt to preach to me about being bi partisan when in fact a Hillary vote is another vote towards the ever right shift of America. I won't be part of that, you can. With more friends like the Clinton's the working man doesn't need many more enemies. (reference to the numerous free trade deals openly and covertly supported by Her Corporateness)

[BootinUp]

169. The only thing the rightward shift of politics proves is that

the country shifted right. It does not mean that running campaigns with higher probablities of losing will stop the rightward shift. That would create a much faster shift. But this may be too complex for many to understand.

[timmymoff]

170. principles aren't malleable

fundamental principles definitely aren't, yet some tend to think they are. It is too complex for many to understand.

[BootinUp]

171. I will remind you that this is the not unlike Dubya's gut philosophy. Ideology is not good

on the right or the left.

[timmymoff]

173. you have to stand for something

and camp weathervane stands for nothing but continual evolution toward the right.

[BootinUp]

174. Her voting score as a Senator is all an intelligent person needs, to know

that is a delusional remark. The country has shifted left post Dubya. Every action has a reaction. The reaction to the Dubya years and his party's ideology is a move to the left and loss of the Presidency for a long time (crosses fingers). If it wasn't for gerrymandering more would have been accomplished.

[timmymoff]

175. yes again

Iraq war and bankruptcy bill in favor of credit cards speaks volumes about how she feels about the little people. Her unwillingness to fight for min wage or healthcare other than current system ( a republican idea) speaks volumes for how she feels about the little people. when she tries chained cpi for social security it will speak volumes, as it has with trade deals etc.

[BootinUp]

176. .

1) being the senator from New York had a lot to do with the first two points. She was representing her state which had been attacked. There are additional IWR considerations I already gave you in a previous post. New York is a major center of finance. I have no surprise or dissapointment when a Senator from New York votes to protect that segment of the economy. Better to have a Democratic New York Senator involved in the process than a Puke Senator from New York.

2) I have already explained to you that fighting for liberal goals is best accomplished by winning elections and holding power in office not by taking fringy stands and losing.

3) The best chance of protecting SS is to support Democrats with a good chance to win.

cya later.

[timmymoff]

177. protect the ones willing to alter it.

amazing the excuses for piss poor judgment.

[TM99]

203. So 9/11 then?

Jesus!

[msanthrope]

16. Um, no. Protection of gun manufacturers is one of the more right wing positions I can think of. nt

[Doctor_J]

23. However, Annie Oakley just recently was campaining in rural PA as a devoted gunslinger

So as with most issues her commitment varies on her audience and the time of day.

[rhett o rick]

51. I think that helping Bush invade Iraq is far more right wing.

Accepting tens of millions for her personal wealth from corporations is also right wing. Promoting fracking and job killing Free Trade.

Cutting welfare and supporting tough drug laws, bingo, right wing. Supporting the Prisons for Profits. Hello.

[eridani]

120. Serious stupidity. As long as gun manufacuting is legal, it is idiotic for them

--to be held responsible for their use as intended. May as well sue Ginsu if you got stabbed. Clinton just loves to peddle Remington products to Saudi Araqbia, but then non-American brown people have no human worth.

[Tarc]

19. When you're so far left, everything looks right

Clinton will continue in the footsteps of Obama. If you think that isn't progressive, then this may not be the party or even the country for you.

[Beowulf]

40. Finally.

Your last sentence is the first thing you've written I agree with.

[musicblind]

142. You do not consider Obama to be a progressive?

Obama is the greatest president of my lifetime.

[Beowulf]

184. He talks like a progressive

but he acts like a neoliberal.

JFK was the greatest president of my lifetime. If just looking at domestic policy, LBJ would be the best. If we are talking the last 35 years, I might agree with you, but the last five presidents haven't been very good.

[Baobab]

189. he's a former FIRE lawyer who has said he might have become a real estate developer in another life.

See the essay "Fitch on Obama"

https://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/92392289-fitch-on-obama.pdf

[PowerToThePeople]

143. Then I may have to petition the UN

then this may not be the party or even the country for you.

Tarc (5,658 posts)
19. When you're so far left, everything looks right

Clinton will continue in the footsteps of Obama. If you think that isn't progressive, then this may not be the party or even the country for you.

Beowulf (583 posts)
40. Finally.

Your last sentence is the first thing you've written I agree with.

for political refugee status from the United States.

You all are just fantastic human beings!

[hamsterjill]

21. I don't see that as my choice.

Have a great day!

[oasis]

24. No.

[HassleCat]

26. You just don't know the secret plan.

She has to pretend to move to the right to get elected. Then she'll spend her first term actually moving to the right to build bipartisan support for her progressive agenda. Then the Republicans will be so blinded by her niceness and accommodation that they will pass legislation so progressive it would make Bob LaFollette blush. See how it works? That's how pragmatic progressive get things done.

[Doctor_J]

33. Yes. I remember that's how the Obama years were set up

And how the nearly Marxist $10.10 minimum wage (which failed), nomination of a Republican to the SCOTUS, TPP, and TTIP became the crown jewels of his 2nd term.

[Vogon_Glory]

28. Incorrect. I plan to vote for Hillary because she's likely to be the nominee

I'm planning to vote for Hillary because she's likely to be the nominee. I may think the Clintons may be a little too far to the right, but unlike, say, the Republicans' Calgary Kid, she can be nudged to the left.

[all american girl]

30. Nope

[seabeyond]

31. Wrong

[Dragonfli]

35. Without Question. /nt

[StevieM]

36. I don't think supporting Clinton means you want the country to move to the right.

The question, as worded, asks about Clinton's voters and what they want. The suggestion that Hillary voters are looking to move America to the right is silly. Most of them want a more progressive nation.

The question is about how to best accomplish that goal. Bernie won't get his most liberal legislation through Congress, even if the Democrats do narrowly take control. So many of us see Hillary's policies as a continuation of the last eight years, while building on that success and taking it to the next level. Essentially what Al Gore wanted to do at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Voting for Hillary Clinton--or whoever the Democrats nominate--means Merrick Garland replacing Antonin Scalia. That's not moving the country to the right, it's moving us to the left. Especially when Ginsberg and Breyer are replaced with two justices who are also from the court's moderate-to-liberal wing.

[blm]

42. I don't see how ANYONE can claim Supreme Court isn't compelling enough reason

for their vote.

Apparently they must not be invested in voting rights, workers' rights, and human rights for those most effected by SC rulings that last a HELLUVA lot longer than presidents and their policy changes.

[That Guy 888]

85. The Democratic Party as a whole is interested in voting rights? Really?

Our Senator's sure didn't seem concerned with voting rights when they certified the Florida election results in 2000 over the objections of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I would like it if they fought as hard as republicans do when the gop is trying to pull some of their crazy crap.

Worker's rights? Clinton fought so hard for H1-B visas she joked that she could run for Senator of Punjab, India. H1-B visa hires are routinely paid less for the same work as American born workers.

Human rights of the "socially liberal-fiscally conservative" sort no doubt. Those sort of rights which inconvenience neither multinational corporations nor those wealthy enough to profit from them. I doubt they extend to say democracy abroad or an environmental activist in Honduras for example. But you can't make obscene profits at the cost of human life an omelet without flouting international law killing activists destroying democracy breaking a few eggs.

US Contribution to Death of Honduran Activist Goes Unmentioned in US Coverage

...As Greg Grandin at The Nation explains:

Cáceres was a vocal and brave indigenous leader, an opponent of the 2009 Honduran coup that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of State, made possible. In The Nation, Dana Frank and I covered that coup as it unfolded. Later, as Clinton’s emails were released, others, such as Robert Naiman, Mark Weisbrot and Alex Main, revealed the central role she played in undercutting Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, and undercutting the opposition movement demanding his restoration. In so doing, Clinton allied with the worst sectors of Honduran society.

http://fair.org/home/us-contribution-to-death-of-honduran-activist-goes-unmentioned-in-us-coverage/

Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup

TRANSCRIPT

...Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most dangerous places in the world. In 2014, the Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres spoke about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup. This is the woman who was assassinated last week in La Esperanza, Honduras. But she spoke about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup with the Argentine TV program Resumen Latinoamericano.

BERTA CÁCERES: [translated] We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it. It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, Hard Choices, practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country. The return of the president, Mel Zelaya, became a secondary issue. There were going to be elections in Honduras. And here, she, Clinton, recognized that they didn’t permit Mel Zelaya’s return to the presidency. There were going to be elections. And the international community—officials, the government, the grand majority—accepted this, even though we warned this was going to be very dangerous and that it would permit a barbarity, not only in Honduras but in the rest of the continent. And we’ve been witnesses to this.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres speaking in 2014. She was murdered last week in her home in La Esperanza in Honduras. Last year, she won the Goldman Environmental Prize. She’s a leading environmentalist in the world. Professor Grandin?

GREG GRANDIN: Yeah, and she criticizes Hillary Clinton’s book, Hard Choices, where Clinton was holding up her actions in Honduras as an example of a clear-eyed pragmatism. I mean, that book is effectively a confession. Every other country in the world or in Latin America was demanding the restitution of democracy and the return of Manuel Zelaya. It was Clinton who basically relegated that to a secondary concern and insisted on elections, which had the effect of legitimizing and routinizing the coup regime and creating the nightmare scenario that exists today.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

[blm]

87. Reader's Digest version of your reply to me: GOP can be trusted with Supreme Court picks

no less than Democrats. AMIRIGHT?

IMO, no sane person would try and even pretend they care about Gore v Bush while implying that Dems would nominate judges no different than Republican presidents.

Or….did you NOT READ my post that you chose to reply to, Guy?

[That Guy 888]

89. Ah the fear based false equivalency. If I don't worship Clinton I'm voting for Trump.

Did I say

Dems would nominate judges no different than Republican presidents.

No, they would be different. Did you ever see the Monty Python Spam sketch?

In this metaphor, I'm saying I don't want any spam, and you're telling me that Clinton hasn't got that much spam. With Clinton we don't get religious or racial bigotry(unless she feels it's politically expedient i.e. the sacred bond of holy matrimony that exists between a man and a woman, super-predators). We still get class bigotry(how many coal fired power plants are in wealthy neighborhoods? how many carbon offset greenbelts are in poor ones?). We'll get everyone who isn't at least middle class (defined by some Clinton supporters as making around $250,000 a year) getting slightly less shafted by the pragmatic Democrats as by the republicans (unless it's politically convenient, see "welfare reform&quot .

I don't want either of the presumptive front runners in America's two major parties to win. Neither of them are on the side of the majority of the American people.

Trump is an ignorant con man unsuited for international politics. Clinton has a pathological need for power and enjoys wielding it. They both seem to get off on their perceived political enemies getting violently hurt.

Incrementalism is a con. If Black Lives Matter took the advice of our political leaders would incremental change happen? I think coverage of police shootings of unarmed non-threatening African-Americans will gradually drift off without constant pressure. The Democratic Party wanted glbt activists to shut-up and settle down. They did not and Marriage Equality is the law of the land, despite the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Being polite and doing what's expected of you isn't getting things done. It's letting our leaders not feel guilty about selling us out.

So while I did read your post, did you read mine?

Can Clinton be trusted with power? How can that super-predator be brought to heel. She will be our bush, are you ok with that?

[blm]

90. You're the one who chose to reply to my post on USSC picks.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't jump in if you don't want to get wet with the water contained.

[That Guy 888]

94. Deflection.

Are you really enthusiastic about Clinton? If you want to vote defensively I can understand that, I've done that plenty of times as a Democrat. I'm done with that though, and possibly with the Democratic Party as far as it being my "go to" party. I'm sure the Democratic Party will not miss my Presidential votes, since I live in Texas.

[blm]

95. I'm a Sanders voter in NC. You still replied to my USSC comment hoping

to deflect to YOUR position. You are pretending that I am the one deflecting.

My state is purple leaning blue and the Supreme Court rulings MATTER to me. I will keep fighting for my state.

[That Guy 888]

96. Usually people talking about the USSC are trying to force people to vote for Clinton

That's usually part of the "Clinton: she's not completely terrible" marketing campaign that DU seems to be full of lately. It must be because the only steps the not-yet-nominee Clinton is taking(or going to take) to unify the party is "who else are you going to vote for".

[blm]

97. I work GOTV in NC - Every Sanders voter I know in NC is as deeply engaged

and committed to getting Democrats elected into every office as I am. Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights Act - swing state voters can't afford the luxury of another GOP administration nominating Supreme Court justices who will be the last word on ALL POLICY DECISIONS for a generation.

[That Guy 888]

99. Unfortunately past DNC leaders decided to kick back and let demographics do the work here in TX

I hope that Sanders can use his fund-raising to provide for a 50 state liberal movement since most, but not all of our Democratic leaders don't want to fight for the Voting Rights act. They actively ignore election fraud too.

I really don't understand how republicans can find obscure procedural ways to fuck us over and Democratic leaders can't do the same to stop them. It seems like majority party or minority party they're happy to sit back and let the republicans run things.

That Mr. Fish cartoon with the Dems frightened of a spine fits far too many of our leaders.

Thanks for working on GOTV.

For what it's worth I hope I'm wrong about Clinton but past performance doesn't make that seem likely. IF she wins, she will be our "w".

[TheKentuckian]

115. Lack of trust. I expect little but corporate enablers who will prop up and legitimize

the dragnet surveillance security state that are ideological opposed to checking the unlimited executive and getting money out of politics.

The Supreme Court is more than Roe v Wade insurance and campaign finance reform is far more than CU. I especially don't trust Clinton on this. While I believe she honestly opposes CU, I believe it is for much more limited reasons than is put forward.
I think she wants to control all of that money and wants to be able to attack an opponent for their contributors, along with the usual vindictive response to an affront on a personal basis with that crappy movie.

Hell, even the one area I actually bought she was solid in choice but she is even talking compromise there now.

I see no reason to trust a ringleader of the entire Turd Way movement as far as I can throw a super massive black hole.

[Yavin4]

39. Nope. Not remotely.

Supporting Clinton means that you support the policy direction of the Obama administration.

[Armstead]

43. Depends on the issue and context

On select "social issues" the same or somewhat to the left maybe -- if they are not "fiscally irresponsible."

But a continuing move to the right, in terms of Wealth and Power and issues related to the economy, and systemic corruption and who owns the government.

On issues of War and Peace to the right.

[Baobab]

190. If elected she likely has to honor this 20 year old promise, made behind the country's back.

and arguably illegitimate for that reason.

its a 20 year old still working the bugs out global deal to trade away potentially lots of jobs.

http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf

[Armstead]

192. Yes I'm familiar with that.....It worries me that she'll pull a lot of crap like that

[Baobab]

193. GATS actually goes back to 1995 so its a done deal..

its just been hung up because of a bunch of things, Mode four being one of them.

A big one though, as shown by the press in India after Nairobi.

They gave up their right to public education because of GATS!

[Armstead]

194. I wish the public was more aware of all that....

That's a big reason I'm for Sanders and against Clinton, and want him to at least remain on the scene to give these things some visibility at least

[Baobab]

196. I just found this, read the bottom of page 7

http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf

Thats fight for $15 and affirmative action described by developing nations who want those jobs- right there.

Thats why HRC is so popular, she's Bill Clinton's wife.

Have you read the paper linked in my .sig ?

the Banality of Evil.

[Armstead]

200. Thanks..I'll check it out

I was really into that stuff in the 90's when Bill was shoving it down out throats. That's a big reason I don't want to see anotehr Clinton in there....They haven't changed their spots.

[Baobab]

207. they've gotten worse

around 2 million excess deaths amenable to health care during the GATS limbo period

Fact that they knew it wouldnt work but kept doing the same thing over and over, while lying to cover up the facts

http://www.pnhp.org/states_flatline/State%20Health%20Reform%20Flatlines%20IJHS%20-%202008.pdf

Nancy Pelosi's confession about having to pass the bill "to see whats in it" (i.e. experiment they already knew would not work)

It all began in 1992, just as GATS was ramping up. Thats when the BS began in earnest.

Human experimentation

Nuremberg AND Helsinki

= huge crime against humanity

[tammywammy]

48. ...

[Triana]

50. US voters live in an insulated bubble, kept afloat by Koch/RW propaganda

Much of it coming from so-called "Democrats" like Gov. Bill Richardson and launched in earnest somewhere around the first Clinton's first term in office - funded by those like the Koch Bros. This has a name: DLC

Supporting Clinton means you have no idea what an ACTUAL Democrat IS - evidenced by the fact that HRC supporters believe their gal is at all progressive, when she's actually to the RIGHT of former Republican Presidents like Eisenhower and to the left of...well, no one.

Supporting Sanders means you remember FDR and what an ACTUAL Democrat IS - and that the Democratic Party, now yanked to the Right by and since the first Clinton - no longer represents the common man or woman or working people/middle class. Democrats and even most Republicans used to support New Deal programs - now they ALL fight or agree to cut them - including Obama and Clinton.

Today's so-called "Democratic Party" fully supports gross income inequality that keeps our economy unstable and the lives of most Americans on tenterhooks at best.

Bernie Sanders is considered by most of the world SLIGHTLY left of center. Not "radical". Not "socialist". Not "extreme". But then they don't live in the propaganda-inflated bubble US voters do.

NEWSFLASH, Mr. Richardson and the rest of you: THERE. IS. NO. EXTREME. LEFT. IN. AMERICA.

N O N E.

Including Bernie Sanders and any/ all of his policy proposals.

There is slightly center-left (Bernie) and a moderate Republican (Clinton).

That's all.

[CrowCityDem]

53. If you believe Hillary is a Republican, than so is 85% of this country.

[creeksneakers2]

179. Bernie calls himself a socialist

I don't know of any other member of Congress who does that. He's WAY left of center.

[Triana]

181. Hillary calls herself a "Democrat" too

and her policies are WAY Right of any Democratic policies I've ever known. So there's that.

His policies are FDR-style New Deal policies. In most quarters of the World (except this one) they are considered mildly liberal.

No matter WHAT each candidate calls themselves, the rest of the World and our OWN US history shows that what we actually have is ONE Democrat and ONE Republican running in the Democratic Primary in 2016.

[creeksneakers2]

182. Hillary is a little to the left of elected Democrats

Her Senate scorecard from Americans For Democratic Action ranked her a little to the left of the Democratic average.

If measured by the number or social programs we are way to the left of the New Deal. Social Security has been dramatically expanded and we have Medicare now, along with other programs. FDR didn't have children's health insurance which Hillary championed.

I agree that Hillary and Bernie would place differently on a chart of French politicians.

Hillary is not a Republican and most of the time disagrees with them. If she was a Republican they wouldn't have spent so much time trying to throw her in prison since 1992.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I look at it as a vote to continue President Obama's policies.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:26 PM - Edit history (3)

[wendylaroux]

104. so,yes?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. so, no

Have a lovely weekend.

[wendylaroux]

107. don't go away

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Clinton is Obama with more war, more global warming more TPP and more Wall Street staffers.

Left and right is a multidimensional thing, but I'm hard pressed to find any of those dimensions in which Clinton isn't to the right of both Obama and Sanders.

[Bobbie Jo]

57. Utter nonsense.

Black/White - Either/Or nonsense at that.

[Binkie The Clown]

59. That's the situation in a nutshell. n/t

[NCTraveler]

61. Kicking a football means you like to play soccer. nt.

[Phlem]

64. Exactly.

And I am officially done with Democrats.

Time to take my business elsewhere.

Glad I don't pay for that fucking star anymore.

[AzDar]

65. Ayup.

[LibDemAlways]

66. i think it's more like Clinton supporters are ok with

the status quo and making small incremental changes here and there on social policy but with a more aggressive foreign policy interventionist mindset. That seems to be what Clinton is advocating.

Sanders supporters are more old school progressives who would like to see a more agrressive policy on social and economic issues that benefit the 99% and a less interventionist foreign policy. He's also attracting large numbers of Independents who may not be idealogues but who are also not in the mood for same old same old.

[Beowulf]

67. I don't think all or even most Clinton supporters want the country to move to the right.

But that's what's going to happen. A much more aggressive foreign policy and triangulation on domestic issues. She'll get things done just to get things done. We won't necessarily like the outcomes. Restrictions on abortions. Means testing Social Security. Bigger co-pays on Medicare. More Student Loans. And lots and lots of pay to play.

[StevieM]

73. The biggest fight of Bill Clinton's administration was when the Republicans tried to raise

premiums on Medicare. They attached it to a continuing budget resolution. Clinton vetoed it and the government shut down. Clinton/Gore and the Democrats in Congress stood firm and made it clear that, if need be, he would let the battle--and the shutdown--last through the 1996 election. I can't imagine why you think she would back down on that issue.

As for abortion, the only restriction Hillary indicated she could support is a ban on third trimester abortions, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother. The law already bans third trimester abortions, but without the health exception. So her policy, if passed, would actually loosen the current level of abortion restrictions. And I can't imagine why you think she would ever sign laws like a waiting period, or the other types of laws that have been passed at the state level in recent years. I just don't think that is a reasonable conclusion.

I would be shocked by any agreement for means testing for Social Security.

[ljm2002]

84. As for abortion...

...her discussion was in context of a fucking Constitutional amendment, which she indicated she might be able to support. That is frightening to this old feminist, and it just shows how she is always willing to pander to the right and to the religious zealots. No, her statement on this was in no way progressive.

[Beowulf]

86. Why do I think that?

Things have changed in 20 years. Nearly every establishment politician and economist says that Medicare in the long tern is in trouble. She won't do what would make most sense and that's reign in costs, so she'll raise the co-pay in the name of saving the program.

You just admitted she is open to a restriction on third term abortions, but as you said, it is already the law. Clinton's are triangulators. I think she's quite capable of signing on to certain kinds of restrictions in order to get something else - say waiting periods in exchange for removing barriers to access. I would agree that this is the one issue she would be least likely to compromise, but my observations of the Clintons is that all things are negotiable.

She's already spoken of raising the retirement age with exceptions of people who have done manual labor. She won't raise the cap, which would make the most sense. She has talked about not providing universal benefits in other areas "Donald Trump's kids don't need free tuition." Her solution is more loans! Not exactly a solution out of the student debt problem. But I digress. I don't think there would be an across the board means test, but I do think COLA's could be prorated or perhaps even more likely, lower earners might be exempted from switching COLA's to chained CPI. Once the genie is let out of that box, it becomes an acceptable means to address budget shortfalls. And of course, it's recently come out that Bill and Newt had an agreement on restructuring Social Security that got sidetracked by that Lewinsky scandal.

I believe you think there is a bedrock with Hillary. I have a lot of doubts about that.

[Yurovsky]

92. If HRC wins the nomination & GE, she'll spend the next 4 years...

doing whatever she thinks she has to do to get re-elected. If that means continuing to sell out to corporate interests and playing footsie with Wall Street, so be it. If that means incarcerating millions of POC to ensure the "predators" don't frighten her white 1%ers, so be it. If it means bombing some poor country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, so be it.

The only thing that matters to Hillary Rodham Clinton is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Money, power, control, ... Too much is never enough. Anyone who gets in her way? Fuck 'em...

[underthematrix]

105. Please explain to me how you think the 1% got to be the

1% because i'm pretty sure their MOST ardent supporters are CONSUMERS.

[synergie]

76. No, that us a false choice that a losing ca,Paige wishes you to believe, and it is the one that the

GOP hopes you will buy so that your pique will make you stay home and ensure that Republicans will win.

Supporting Clinton means that you actually want to ACHIEVE progressive goals, rather than just shout about them as you fail to lift a finger to do a single thing that will ACTUALLY move the country to the left.

That is your choice, if the left means anything to you vote Clinton, if not stay at home and pout about Bernie or otherwise allow Repubs to win and actually push the country Right at all levels.

[Doctor_J]

108. Clinton doesn't have any progressive goals, so achieving progressive goals is unlikely

All of her plans are to move the country not as far to right as trump (on some things - on others she is more conservative).

[Maedhros]

80. Democrats are dominated and defined by fear.

Other considerations, such as policy and political philosophy, are of much, much lower priority. So much so as to be meaningless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. The Left vs Right conflict is nothing new on DU.

This time, because of the candidates, it's been a bit more obvious.

[LanternWaste]

82. No. That's basically an allegation (by its very definition).

"that's basically the choice, correct?"

No. That's basically an allegation (by its very definition).

[Ferd Berfel]

83. That IS the basic choice.

Boiled down the the nub.

Well Said.




it should have been a bumper sticker

[rock]

91. "Supporting Sanders means you believe the country needs to move to the left. "

Uh, no.

The most interesting thing about this statement is in the underpinning. First we must examine 'electability', a quality which lies mainly in the electorate (the voters), NOT in the candidates alone. We now know that there is too great a difference between Sanders and Clinton. He cannot prevail with the current electorate (and current competition). What is rather ironic is that in the early days of the campaign the BSers were running around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming, "He is too electable, so stop saying he isn't!" even though nobody was saying anything about it. And this was a perfectly sensible statement at that time since we didn't have any statistics (actual votes) for comparison.

Therefore since Sanders is unelectable, a vote for Sanders is a vote for Trump and therefore a vote to move to the right, (the extreme right).

[ismnotwasm]

93. Nope.

[Skwmom]

98. Supporting Clinton means a govt that works for the 1% is okay with you.

[Actor]

101. In the GE supporting her means you are not insane.

[wendylaroux]

103. and in the primary it sure as hell means you are

[Doctor_J]

110. The op was about the choice between Sanders and Clinton

[Agnosticsherbet]

102. LOL

Just LOL...

[Smarmie Doofus]

109. Yes. Basically. And/or for a great many of her devotees....

... supporting Clinton means ... affirming women's rights.

The thinking is: If USA elects a a woman.... ANY woman.... ( and clearly w. Clinton we're talking about something pretty close to "any" woman) it will comprise a death-blow to institutionalized male supremacy. In exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree that Obama's election comprised a death-blow to racism in the USA.

Some people actually believe this.

Clinton's election will do as much for women in the USA as Thatcher's did for women in UK. Meaning: ( for those light on the history) not very much.

But she, like Thatcher before her , will strengthen and affirm the, the economic and and class disparity on which our caste system depends.

Clinton fans consider this "progress".

[Unicorn]

112. Yep, you got it.

[Squinch]

117. But I though it meant I was a racist oligarch? Whoa...

... serious identity crisis here!!! Hold me!!!

[JI7]

204. racist ?

OP wanted to get rid of the african american group on DU.

so many who claim to be progressive, liberal etc on here sound exactly like the racists on other forums who can be open about their views.

[Sancho]

121. How far to the "left" do you want to go? Would you vote for someone more "left" than Bernie?

Should all income be divided equally among the population?
Should boarders be open to all immigrants who immediately have status?
Should all workers be automatically part of a collective that runs the business?
Should polluting/dangerous corporations be shut down - even if it means lowering everyone's quality of life (for example - electricity for a limited number of hours a day)?

Is there a limit to how far "left" you go - and what is that limit? There are Socialist Parties, and a lot of Bernie's values can be found on their platforms. There is a Green Party, and in the past they have criticized and reject Bernie but recently embraced him. There is a Communist Party too and Bernie has openly praised some communist tenets.

These groups are "left wing", but not the same as the Democratic Party.

http://www.dsausa.org (advertises "We need Bernie&quot
http://www.gp.org (invited Bernie to join them)
http://www.cpusa.org (ah heck...check it out for yourself)

Just being the "most left" is not the goal of Democrats.

[Doctor_J]

123. Did you reply to the wrong post?

Mrs. Clinton will move the country to the right of where it is now. Mr. Sanders will move it to the left of where it is now. Your post reads like something at Fox Nation (Vote for Sanders and all of your stuff will be confiscated!!!)

I swear every day the posts from Hilland get nuttier.

[amborin]

122. way to the right, to the right of Nixon, and much further

[Lil Missy]

126. Really? I've changed my mind now!!

NOT.

[emsimon33]

127. Yes. Social programs will go first.

Had it not been for Monica, Bill would have privatized Social Security. I suspect that that and more "trade" agreements and incursions into countries will be high on Hillary's agenda, showing that she can work with the Republican Congress.

[silvershadow]

131. From my perspective yes. The Corporate State solidifying vs. The Constitution- We, The

People. Saving our democracy vs the complete perversion of it. So, no contest. We have debated this over and over. A vote for Clinton is a vote to throw the USA right under the bus. So please, please inform yourself on the issues if you do not understand that, because that's the absolute truth. Read. Watch. Listen. Learn. Understand. And then you will know exactly what the right vote is.

[Thinkingabout]

132. I'm with Hillary, she has the best agenda, she is a progressive who gets things done,

She is the most qualified candidate running. In all of the the attempts to paint Hillary on the right is not working, proof, she has gotten over three million more votes than Sanders. You may say Hillary is to the right of Sanders and then I will conclude he is too far left. Do you know where the right stands? If would make good research to find out.

[Doctor_J]

134. I know where the country is right now. Clinton wants to move it to the right

That was the point of the op, and none of the hillarians in this thread have said otherwise, much less proven it. She is a conservative who gets bad things done.

[Thinkingabout]

139. Much less proven it, I did not make the statement, it is not on me to prove anything. We do not

need to move to the far left, wrong move.

[Hoyt]

133. It means we need to make progress, and yelling at the sky is not progress.

[Doctor_J]

135. Read reply 71 for a prescient view of the "progress" Hillary and Ryan will make

[musicblind]

140. No. That is not correct.

But you knew that.

[lovemydog]

144. I respectfully disagree Doctor_J.

I think that sometimes we make big gains. Sometimes we make small ones. Sometimes we tread water. I think meaningful progress doesn't occur in a vacuum or via simplistic labels. It's achieved by a vast set of unique forces that one person alone cannot entirely control.

[Doctor_J]

145. So you believe we should move left, but think impossible, so you're voting for Clinton

When did you give up hope?

[lovemydog]

157. That's not what I said.

[bettyellen]

162. when did you decide that rudely mischaracterizing what people say was a good tack to take?

[Sheepshank]

148. No, you are very very wrong

I honestly hope that mass assessments isn't your day job.

[Betty Karlson]

150. There is another way to put it:

the status quo is a country moving to the right. Voting for Clinton is voting for the status quo.

Even if you would like the country to stop moving at all (and stay right where it is) Clinton is not the obvious choice. Anyone upset at the status quo should shun Clinton.

[anigbrowl]

158. No it doesn't

One of the most annoying things about ideological people is their habit of making completely unfounded pronouncements on the motivations of others. I most certainly do not believe that the country needs to move to the right.

[bettyellen]

161. Nope. It means your idea of "left" excluded me in favor of $$$.

[PragmaticLiberal]

165. To be fair, it seems like that's what "you" believe.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong (or right) but I doubt most Clinton supporters believe that.


Full disclosure: Not a supporter of either candidate so I have no dog in this fight.

[Doctor_J]

172. Of course they don't believe that

But their candidate wants to increase the numbers of wars and interventions and "regime changes", increase the Pentagon budget, keep on fracking, increase the SS eligibility age, has expressed willingness to restrict reproductive rights (via a constitutional amendment), takes hundreds of millions in dark campaign money, believes in capital punishment, is OK with torture as US policy, has screamed "there will never, ever be single payer healthcare in the US, and so on. What would you call them if not conservative?

[brooklynite]

168. Nope, wrong way around...

Supporting Clinton means you believe the country needs to move to the left incrementally.

Supporting Sanders means you believe the country needs to move to the right by losing to the Republican candidate.

[JohnnyRingo]

180. You're not correct

Hillary Clinton is to the left of the average voter.

Just ask someone from outside your Bernie Bubble if Hillary is a right wing nut job. Tell your conservative Tea Party uncle that Hillary is on his side of the political fence. If you got a bumper sticker that said "Hillary is not a liberal" most people would think you were campaigning for her.

[Rex]

185. Only if you like things simple and divisive.

Usually that is how freepers act about their candidate vs the ones they don't like. My nominee is great, yours is shit etc.. Children like this form of dialogue.

I learned something this primary season about DU...can you guess what it is?

[B Calm]

195. I agree, but I would change the word country to Democratic Party.

[RandySF]

201. .

[Dem2]

205. Bullshit

Ridiculous. They're not that far apart on the issues.