HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » What specific POLICY POSI...

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:56 AM

What specific POLICY POSITIONS show Sec. Clinton to be "Not Liberal" or "Not a Democrat?"

Please help me understand the vitriol.

NOT the usual smears or "scandals." NOT insinuations or innuendo or rumors. NOT her IWR vote, or legislation that passed 20 years ago.

ACTUAL policies and proposals, today; her platform as a candidate; her plans and her goals. What inspires the anger and hatred? Edited to add: specifically, those that differ from President Obama and/or Senator Sanders.

(Not looking for a flame war.)

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

480 replies, 25324 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 480 replies Author Time Post
Reply What specific POLICY POSITIONS show Sec. Clinton to be "Not Liberal" or "Not a Democrat?" (Original post)
Sparkly Apr 2016 OP
RobertEarl Apr 2016 #1
Sparkly Apr 2016 #2
litlbilly Apr 2016 #18
Squinch Apr 2016 #124
All in it together Apr 2016 #255
Squinch Apr 2016 #276
All in it together Apr 2016 #326
Squinch Apr 2016 #334
Baobab Apr 2016 #380
Squinch Apr 2016 #391
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #393
Squinch Apr 2016 #395
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #397
Squinch Apr 2016 #398
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #400
All in it together Apr 2016 #346
Squinch Apr 2016 #351
snowy owl Apr 2016 #34
BreakfastClub Apr 2016 #65
haikugal Apr 2016 #87
Squinch Apr 2016 #125
Squinch Apr 2016 #122
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #396
floriduck Apr 2016 #70
Sparkly Apr 2016 #98
floriduck Apr 2016 #103
Sparkly Apr 2016 #107
floriduck Apr 2016 #112
floriduck Apr 2016 #123
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #128
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #156
puffy socks Apr 2016 #172
Loki Apr 2016 #180
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #184
puffy socks Apr 2016 #188
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #215
Sparkly Apr 2016 #222
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #365
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #350
Time for change Apr 2016 #165
Baobab Apr 2016 #208
floppyboo Apr 2016 #138
Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #470
Baobab Apr 2016 #207
femmedem Apr 2016 #233
Warren DeMontague Apr 2016 #246
eridani Apr 2016 #392
Joob Apr 2016 #474
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #153
Kelvin Mace Apr 2016 #175
Zen Democrat Apr 2016 #290
Kelvin Mace Apr 2016 #357
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #399
all american girl Apr 2016 #417
Zen Democrat Apr 2016 #479
Baobab Apr 2016 #272
JackRiddler Apr 2016 #454
djean111 Apr 2016 #3
SheenaR Apr 2016 #7
Sparkly Apr 2016 #12
auntpurl Apr 2016 #17
All in it together Apr 2016 #44
puffy socks Apr 2016 #160
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #171
puffy socks Apr 2016 #181
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #187
puffy socks Apr 2016 #451
puffy socks Apr 2016 #452
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #471
Loki Apr 2016 #185
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #190
Loki Apr 2016 #231
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #374
Ed Suspicious Apr 2016 #363
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #186
Sparkly Apr 2016 #234
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #366
All in it together Apr 2016 #275
LibDemAlways Apr 2016 #384
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #58
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #66
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #72
Sparkly Apr 2016 #110
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #117
Sparkly Apr 2016 #131
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #161
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #182
Sparkly Apr 2016 #223
all american girl Apr 2016 #419
Sparkly Apr 2016 #16
litlbilly Apr 2016 #19
Sparkly Apr 2016 #23
litlbilly Apr 2016 #25
Sparkly Apr 2016 #47
All in it together Apr 2016 #46
Squinch Apr 2016 #132
Baobab Apr 2016 #213
Sparkly Apr 2016 #224
Baobab Apr 2016 #225
Sparkly Apr 2016 #232
Baobab Apr 2016 #236
Sparkly Apr 2016 #243
Baobab Apr 2016 #270
Baobab Apr 2016 #271
Squinch Apr 2016 #273
Baobab Apr 2016 #281
Squinch Apr 2016 #283
Baobab Apr 2016 #287
Squinch Apr 2016 #291
Baobab Apr 2016 #300
Squinch Apr 2016 #303
Baobab Apr 2016 #313
Squinch Apr 2016 #317
Baobab Apr 2016 #320
Squinch Apr 2016 #335
Baobab Apr 2016 #341
Squinch Apr 2016 #342
Karma13612 Apr 2016 #461
Squinch Apr 2016 #467
All in it together Apr 2016 #280
Squinch Apr 2016 #282
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #406
Squinch Apr 2016 #408
HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #409
Squinch Apr 2016 #411
Karma13612 Apr 2016 #462
Squinch Apr 2016 #468
djean111 Apr 2016 #26
Maedhros Apr 2016 #106
Sparkly Apr 2016 #227
Maedhros Apr 2016 #229
Sparkly Apr 2016 #237
djean111 Apr 2016 #414
Squinch Apr 2016 #401
snowy owl Apr 2016 #36
Squinch Apr 2016 #404
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #89
angrychair Apr 2016 #90
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #192
Baobab Apr 2016 #209
Sparkly Apr 2016 #22
All in it together Apr 2016 #57
Sparkly Apr 2016 #235
All in it together Apr 2016 #284
Sparkly Apr 2016 #312
All in it together Apr 2016 #323
Sparkly Apr 2016 #325
Squinch Apr 2016 #412
Squinch Apr 2016 #405
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #195
Sparkly Apr 2016 #248
Orsino Apr 2016 #24
Sparkly Apr 2016 #38
broiles Apr 2016 #42
jack_krass Apr 2016 #45
all american girl Apr 2016 #56
jack_krass Apr 2016 #75
all american girl Apr 2016 #91
jack_krass Apr 2016 #120
all american girl Apr 2016 #169
wildeyed Apr 2016 #205
Sparkly Apr 2016 #49
Squinch Apr 2016 #136
All in it together Apr 2016 #63
Squinch Apr 2016 #139
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #196
Faux pas Apr 2016 #53
loyalsister Apr 2016 #4
demmiblue Apr 2016 #6
Sparkly Apr 2016 #52
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #85
Sparkly Apr 2016 #130
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #173
Sparkly Apr 2016 #238
mindwalker_i Apr 2016 #274
Sparkly Apr 2016 #314
all american girl Apr 2016 #421
Squinch Apr 2016 #142
Chezboo Apr 2016 #93
Zynx Apr 2016 #168
peace13 Apr 2016 #133
Squinch Apr 2016 #144
peace13 Apr 2016 #154
Squinch Apr 2016 #159
peace13 Apr 2016 #415
Squinch Apr 2016 #416
peace13 Apr 2016 #418
Squinch Apr 2016 #420
peace13 Apr 2016 #422
Squinch Apr 2016 #423
Squinch Apr 2016 #394
loyalsister Apr 2016 #193
Sparkly Apr 2016 #256
loyalsister Apr 2016 #288
Squinch Apr 2016 #278
loyalsister Apr 2016 #285
Squinch Apr 2016 #289
loyalsister Apr 2016 #294
Squinch Apr 2016 #296
loyalsister Apr 2016 #298
Squinch Apr 2016 #332
loyalsister Apr 2016 #347
Squinch Apr 2016 #348
loyalsister Apr 2016 #349
Squinch Apr 2016 #353
loyalsister Apr 2016 #368
Squinch Apr 2016 #390
loyalsister Apr 2016 #428
Squinch Apr 2016 #435
nashville_brook Apr 2016 #328
Sparkly Apr 2016 #333
all american girl Apr 2016 #424
nashville_brook Apr 2016 #437
Squinch Apr 2016 #448
amborin Apr 2016 #5
Sivart Apr 2016 #8
wildeyed Apr 2016 #9
Sivart Apr 2016 #10
wildeyed Apr 2016 #194
Sivart Apr 2016 #198
Sparkly Apr 2016 #247
All in it together Apr 2016 #292
Sparkly Apr 2016 #302
beedle Apr 2016 #11
DookDook Apr 2016 #13
shalafi Apr 2016 #28
questionseverything Apr 2016 #60
Sparkly Apr 2016 #64
questionseverything Apr 2016 #81
Sparkly Apr 2016 #105
questionseverything Apr 2016 #118
Sparkly Apr 2016 #127
All in it together Apr 2016 #69
questionseverything Apr 2016 #86
All in it together Apr 2016 #297
floppyboo Apr 2016 #170
Sparkly Apr 2016 #61
potone Apr 2016 #166
Squinch Apr 2016 #150
NCTraveler Apr 2016 #14
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #15
DookDook Apr 2016 #31
Arugula Latte Apr 2016 #67
Sparkly Apr 2016 #71
cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #80
Sparkly Apr 2016 #116
WDIM Apr 2016 #20
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #199
deathrind Apr 2016 #383
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2016 #21
leeroysphitz Apr 2016 #35
SHRED Apr 2016 #27
Sparkly Apr 2016 #59
Chiquitita Apr 2016 #143
Sparkly Apr 2016 #228
Chiquitita Apr 2016 #449
creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #382
Chiquitita Apr 2016 #450
creeksneakers2 Apr 2016 #469
Chiquitita Apr 2016 #478
kaleckim Apr 2016 #29
Sparkly Apr 2016 #68
Sivart Apr 2016 #76
redstateblues Apr 2016 #322
All in it together Apr 2016 #79
Sparkly Apr 2016 #101
kaleckim Apr 2016 #115
Sparkly Apr 2016 #126
Sivart Apr 2016 #200
Sparkly Apr 2016 #230
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #202
Sparkly Apr 2016 #239
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #369
All in it together Apr 2016 #306
Sparkly Apr 2016 #311
kaleckim Apr 2016 #463
kaleckim Apr 2016 #108
Sparkly Apr 2016 #113
kaleckim Apr 2016 #121
Sparkly Apr 2016 #134
kaleckim Apr 2016 #446
Arugula Latte Apr 2016 #183
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #211
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #201
Sparkly Apr 2016 #249
deathrind Apr 2016 #30
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #32
Sparkly Apr 2016 #73
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #95
Sparkly Apr 2016 #102
peace13 Apr 2016 #140
all american girl Apr 2016 #427
peace13 Apr 2016 #429
all american girl Apr 2016 #430
peace13 Apr 2016 #431
all american girl Apr 2016 #433
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #220
Sparkly Apr 2016 #250
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #304
Sparkly Apr 2016 #307
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #309
Sparkly Apr 2016 #316
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #371
dr60omg Apr 2016 #163
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #212
Sparkly Apr 2016 #258
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #260
Sparkly Apr 2016 #266
Eric J in MN Apr 2016 #308
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #373
All in it together Apr 2016 #310
leeroysphitz Apr 2016 #33
Sparkly Apr 2016 #74
leeroysphitz Apr 2016 #82
Sparkly Apr 2016 #94
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #217
Sparkly Apr 2016 #252
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #257
Sparkly Apr 2016 #261
Armstead Apr 2016 #189
Sparkly Apr 2016 #253
Armstead Apr 2016 #361
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #214
Sparkly Apr 2016 #254
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #372
kaleckim Apr 2016 #464
The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #37
snowy owl Apr 2016 #43
The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #50
snowy owl Apr 2016 #119
The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #135
snowy owl Apr 2016 #145
The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #151
snowy owl Apr 2016 #157
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #219
Sparkly Apr 2016 #244
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #370
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #54
snowy owl Apr 2016 #137
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #149
snowy owl Apr 2016 #158
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #164
Sparkly Apr 2016 #78
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #218
Baobab Apr 2016 #286
jack_krass Apr 2016 #39
Sparkly Apr 2016 #84
jack_krass Apr 2016 #191
Lucinda Apr 2016 #197
snowy owl Apr 2016 #40
Sparkly Apr 2016 #88
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #41
Sparkly Apr 2016 #92
AgingAmerican Apr 2016 #48
Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 #51
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #376
Armstead Apr 2016 #55
Vattel Apr 2016 #62
Bread and Circus Apr 2016 #77
2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #83
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #96
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #460
Loudestlib Apr 2016 #97
snowy owl Apr 2016 #226
Sparkly Apr 2016 #301
snowy owl Apr 2016 #355
Octafish Apr 2016 #99
Zen Democrat Apr 2016 #100
DonCoquixote Apr 2016 #104
berniepdx420 Apr 2016 #109
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #111
northernsouthern Apr 2016 #114
JDPriestly Apr 2016 #221
Sparkly Apr 2016 #305
djean111 Apr 2016 #426
peace13 Apr 2016 #129
basselope Apr 2016 #141
merrily Apr 2016 #146
onecaliberal Apr 2016 #147
Sparkly Apr 2016 #265
onecaliberal Apr 2016 #344
Sparkly Apr 2016 #148
peace13 Apr 2016 #152
JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #155
snowy owl Apr 2016 #167
Sparkly Apr 2016 #241
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #162
Sparkly Apr 2016 #242
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #245
Sparkly Apr 2016 #263
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #269
Sparkly Apr 2016 #299
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #319
Sparkly Apr 2016 #321
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #389
underthematrix Apr 2016 #387
IdaBriggs Apr 2016 #388
Romulox Apr 2016 #174
Sparkly Apr 2016 #267
jack_krass Apr 2016 #329
Sparkly Apr 2016 #336
jack_krass Apr 2016 #339
Sparkly Apr 2016 #343
jack_krass Apr 2016 #356
senz Apr 2016 #176
bkkyosemite Apr 2016 #177
AuntPatsy Apr 2016 #178
Sivart Apr 2016 #179
dchill Apr 2016 #203
Baobab Apr 2016 #204
Lucinda Apr 2016 #206
morningfog Apr 2016 #210
liberalnarb Apr 2016 #216
Sparkly Apr 2016 #240
FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #251
Sparkly Apr 2016 #262
FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #279
insta8er Apr 2016 #259
Sparkly Apr 2016 #264
Trajan Apr 2016 #268
Sparkly Apr 2016 #293
Squinch Apr 2016 #436
Squinch Apr 2016 #340
egalitegirl Apr 2016 #277
Sparkly Apr 2016 #295
egalitegirl Apr 2016 #337
Sparkly Apr 2016 #338
egalitegirl Apr 2016 #364
chervilant Apr 2016 #381
All in it together Apr 2016 #315
Sparkly Apr 2016 #318
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #442
TheFarseer Apr 2016 #324
Sparkly Apr 2016 #330
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #327
Sparkly Apr 2016 #331
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #360
Chan790 Apr 2016 #402
A Little Weird Apr 2016 #432
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #352
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2016 #359
fleabiscuit Apr 2016 #345
Squinch Apr 2016 #354
fleabiscuit Apr 2016 #362
Tiggeroshii Apr 2016 #358
Aerows Apr 2016 #367
fleabiscuit Apr 2016 #375
Aerows Apr 2016 #378
fleabiscuit Apr 2016 #439
Aerows Apr 2016 #440
fleabiscuit Apr 2016 #443
Aerows Apr 2016 #444
chervilant Apr 2016 #377
Meteor Man Apr 2016 #379
MFM008 Apr 2016 #385
snowy owl Apr 2016 #473
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #386
Squinch Apr 2016 #425
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #445
Squinch Apr 2016 #447
snowy owl Apr 2016 #455
Squinch Apr 2016 #465
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #457
Squinch Apr 2016 #466
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #472
Squinch Apr 2016 #475
Betty Karlson Apr 2016 #477
My Good Babushka Apr 2016 #403
cantbeserious Apr 2016 #407
B Calm Apr 2016 #410
4nic8em Apr 2016 #413
A Little Weird Apr 2016 #434
azurnoir Apr 2016 #438
B Calm Apr 2016 #441
snowy owl Apr 2016 #456
YOHABLO Apr 2016 #453
silvershadow Apr 2016 #458
Baobab Apr 2016 #459
Beowulf Apr 2016 #476
Baobab May 2016 #480

Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:05 PM

1. Kissinger kinship

 

No, we can't make progress, she says

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:07 PM

2. Could you cite the quote please?

"No, we can't make progress." ??

Edit: Kissinger... I am asking about specific policy positions today, not innuendo or insinuations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:44 PM

18. she voted for the bankruptcy bill, that alone should do it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:47 PM

124. Which bankruptcy bill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #124)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:22 PM

255. The one that Elizabeth Warren talked with her about in the 90s

She was against it after the talk, until she became a Senator.
Warren is on YouTube talking about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #255)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:59 PM

276. Well then provide the link or name the bill. Because your statement right now is that

the Clinton policy position you don't like is "you know, that bankruptcy bill that she talked to Liz about in the 90's." You must see that is a ridiculous statement. This could be anything or nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #276)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:11 PM

326. It's been on DU many times

Probably not on the Hillary forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #326)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:29 PM

334. So the best you can do to describe this bill that has turned you against Hillary is to say that

it is some bill that lots of people on DU have talked about? You can't provide any more specific information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #334)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:29 AM

380. Understand *this*



The man in the video is dead.

He died not long after the video was made.

Read this article he wrote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/06/16/public-option-pales-next-single-payer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #380)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:10 AM

391. You again. Do you never address the subject in the post you are replying to?

Do you always go straight to some daft innuendo like this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #380)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:22 AM

393. Wouldn't it be...

 

..that if his death was, in fact, suspicious, if his autopsy was inconclusive, that his friends and family would be shouting from the rooftop for an investigation? That they'd be blogging it everywhere, talking to 60minutes, that Breitbart would find a way to blame it on the Clintons?

I looked around a bit - nothing comes up except the usual tin foil crowd.

People die in their sleep all the time. People...good people...have private lives we know nothing about ~


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #393)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:28 AM

395. Don't you know that we are now a full on Republican spin machine, and must always

portray Hillary as a fiend with blood dripping from her teeth? Hillary was the Zodiac killer, doncha know. She killed Kenny too. A lot of times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #395)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:33 AM

397. Lol

 



She killed Kenny



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #397)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:36 AM

398. A bunch of times. I saw it in Breitbart, and they know the score.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #398)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:39 AM

400. Word.

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #276)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:18 AM

346. Here ya go, it's all this IPad can do.

Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton and Bankruptcy
On YouTube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #346)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:32 AM

351. So, you mean the one that she ultimately voted against:

In the end, however, Clinton was against the bankruptcy bill at the moment it really counted — final passage in Congress. (In all, 26 Democrats opposed the bill and 18 supported it, along with all 55 Republicans.)

So for all the money the financial interests contributed to Clinton’s campaign, she did not give them the support they desired. At the same time, however, the vote was so lopsided that Clinton’s support was not needed.

In light of subsequent events, Warren’s comments from 2004 at this point appear out of date. We would be curious to know if Warren’s experience as senator has changed her perspective on Clinton’s actions in 2001.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:16 PM

34. Her specific positions today evolved since Bernie's tutuledge. She is hawkish. See SNL...

Asking for her positions after she changed them makes one wonder about whether your question is genuine. Can we believe she has really changed? Or is it pandering? I don't know. And she is far more hawkish than Bernie and she admits that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:00 PM

65. LOL, Hillary was not directed by Bernie. Give me a break. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:14 PM

87. No, that's triangulation...a third way given. Along with 'whatever it takes'..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #87)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:48 PM

125. What policies, though?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:45 PM

122. SNL... okaaaaay....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:32 AM

396. SNL...really?

 

Saturday Night Live? Please don't tell me you're presenting Saturday Night Live as a news source.

That just can't be...

There must be some other SNL I'm unaware of ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:06 PM

70. Refusing to provide health care for all,

 

her stance on legalizing medical marijuana, her support of fracking. . . .more if necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:27 PM

98. Not true.

She has ALWAYS been for universal health care, and fought for it long before it was popular to do so.

She is 100% for medical marijuana. http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/hillary-clinton-supports-medical-marijuana-as-president.html

She has a strong clean energy plan that adds up and it does not include being "for fracking."
She's against fracking and supports banning it 'when any locality or any state is against it, when the release of methane or contamination of water is present, and unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.'

Meanwhile, she says "we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking."

"By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place." she added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:33 PM

103. So she DOES support fracking.

 

You can't have it both ways. She won't legalize recreational marijuana and that has majority support by citizens and many politicians. And I will take the US Chamber of Commerce's stance that she will approve the TPP, as is once she's in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #103)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:37 PM

107. "we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking"

If that means to you that she "supports fracking," well okay.

Senator Sanders' bill to legalize marijuana nationwide has exactly ZERO co-sponsors. It's an easy thing to say, though.

She is against the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:40 PM

112. You stick to your story and I will mine. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:46 PM

123. FYI Here's how Congress feels about legalizing recreational MJ.

 

I'm sure I could also find other websites to support this, especially since a number of Republicans support it too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/3/marijuana-votes-signal-growing-support-in-congress/?page=all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:50 PM

128. If president, Bernie will work to take marijuana off the list of controlled substances.

That should have been done a long time ago.

And we should take another look at putting alcoholic beverages on the list. (Just joking, but they are far more dangerous than marijuana appears to be.) I would, however, go further and monitor the quality and ingredients of marijuana to insure safety. That is complex but could be a direction for the future. People deserve to know what they are getting when they buy something labelled marijuana.

By the way, Hillary tries to copy what Bernie says and does. But her heart belongs to daddy, and daddy is Goldman Sachs, Monsanto Walmart, etc. the very huge corporations that co-opt our democratic institutions and have too much power.

I'm not opposed to capitalism. I like it. But democratic institutions should not answer to the wealthy in our society. Hillary is incapable of even understanding what the issue of corporate dominance in our society means to people. She just does not get this.

Yes. Government can become too strong a force in a society. It can impose regimental rules on people. But so can corporations. And today, the corporations are a threat to our personal freedom.

The internet is an excellent example. Hillary seems to be oblivious to the real threat that corporations with their intelligence operations and knowledge of us as individuals pose to us.

I wrote a very long post below. I hope you will read it.

Actually, Hillary's professed platform is of very little interest to many of us because we do not trust her. We view what she says as merely a means to get into the White House at which time she will do all kinds of things we don't want done.

I understand the approach in your OP, but it just misses the mark. It's not what Hillary says that matters. She once said that marriage was a sacred bond between a man and a woman or something to that effect. She sold fracking to other countries and now you claim she opposes it. She is just untrustworthy and unprincipled and changing her platform, her positions to try to win Bernie supporters as voters will just make her appear even less trustworthy. She is a machine that triangulates. And I do not mean that she is that personally. She is probably a loving and delightful mother and grandmother. But politically I do not trust or like her. Personally I have nothing against her. I do not know her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:05 PM

156. If she doesn't think fracking is good, she should have said so from the beginning.

Fracking is harmful and dangerous if for no other reason than that it heightens the possibility of earthquakes.

Hillary is triangulating constantly, afraid to say what she means. If she opposes fracking she should have said so from the beginning loudly and clearly. We don't need a president who can't or is afraid to say what she means and mean what she says. Hillary's views on fracking are untrustworthy and unclear. Sorry, but that is so.

Especially in California, we should not allow fracking. I like our governor very much, but I disagree with his allowing fracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #156)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:30 PM

172. If a candidate doesnt initially support a position and then changes their mind or

 

sees good arguments on both sides they are afraid, untrustworthy and unclear?

Applying that to Bernie

He's voted for three strikes and mandatory minimums for drug offenders/then said "small amounts decriminalized", then changed again to federally legalize

He's voted several times against gun control

He's voted for military action in Iraq in 98, Somalia, and Libya/ now he's is against war because of 1 vote against the Iraq Resolution

He voted for Wall Street deregulation 2000 CFMA which helped crash the economy/now nearly his entire platform is about Wall Street and income inequality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #172)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:51 PM

180. You won't get an answer from them

because they have none. All of your statements run against the meme of the Sander's campaign. I'll use the same acronym we always use against repukes IOKIYABSS. He can change his mind, but no one else can, it's flip flopping or, better yet, disingenuous and you can't trust her. Yawn. Personally, I like people who will evolve on their positions. It means they are thinking!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #172)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:01 PM

184. The CFMA was in a budget resolution. It was snuck in by Phil Gramm and one of Hillary's advisors

at the last minute.

I realize that he voted for three strikes and mandatory minimums -- and he did that because the bill also contained provisions that would protect women.

I agree with him on gun control.

I do not support him because I think he is a pacifist, He isn't a pacifist, and he has clearly stated that.

I agree with his view on breaking up the banks and enforcing our laws on Wall Street.

I agree with virtually all of his stances on the issues.

I do not trust Hillary for many reasons and one of them is my gut feeling. I am a woman. I also trust Elizabeth Warren and Marcy Kaptur. I do not trust Hillary. Do you know anyone you don't trust? Because it is not always based on just what they say. It is based on a sense of who they are. I do not trust Hillary.

I am particularly critical of her about her vote on the Iraq War Resolution because I saw a video of her in a discussion with women from Code Pink who had been to Iraq and begged her not to vote for war. Her response to them was cold and as it turned out she was very wrong. She does not really listen to people. She makes a show of it but if you watch her she is only thinking of how she will respond and stick to what she thought before she talked to them.

She didn't just do that with Code Pink. She has done that with the Black Lives Matter People too. She just pretends to listen.

She does not have the temperament to be president. Both Obama and Bernie do. Bernie is actually a good listener. Hillary tries, but it is too difficult for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #184)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:20 PM

188. Strange you should trust Elizabeth Warren, she both agrees with Hillary's Wall Street plan and was a

 

Republican.
Not liking people based on gut feeling is immature. It allows anyone to make up stories about you and give people a bad taste in their mouth. That is a classic psychopathic Machiavellian tactic and works easily on those who base their opinions of others "gut feelings".

You agree with Bernie on gun control.
Which time when he vloted against any 5 times or now when he says he wants to hold gun manufacturers responsible?


" She does not really listen to people. She makes a show of it but if you watch her she is only thinking of how she will respond and stick to what she thought before she talked to them."

Perhaps its because she's heard the same questions over and over and over again. Sanders does the exact same thing sticking to scripted talking points .

It's strange how many people decide what others are thinking . That's total rubbish.

In fact, Bernie's camp ruins there own argument there.
How can she not be listening to people and also be shifting to the left because of Bernie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #188)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:33 PM

215. I'm 72. I trust my experience with people.

Hillary does not really listen. She bristles. Visibly.

Bernie really listens to people.

Read his book and then write posts.

I tried to read Hillary's second book, Living History. I couldn't get through it.

Try reading Bernie's book, Outsider in the White House. You will agree that he listens to people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #184)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:25 PM

222. "my gut feeling"

This is why I am asking for discussion on the candidates' stands on issues.

"Gut feelings" can lead to bad things. Just sayin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #222)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:35 AM

365. It depends. Rational thought is important, but gut feelings can be very right.

Depends on the person and the reason for the feelings.

I have been talking about the issues primarily. That's where we disagree with Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #172)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:30 AM

350. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #107)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:16 PM

165. She is against the TPP?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/

PolitiFact has looked at the issue before. We found Clinton made plenty of strongly supportive comments about the deal while negotiations were still ongoing.

Speaking in Australia in 2012, Clinton hailed the deal as "setting the gold standard."

"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field," Clinton said. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

Strong words for a deal that hadn't been completed yet. But it wasn’t just on that one occasion that Clinton was more than just hopeful about the deal’s impact.

She declared in November 2012 remarks in Singapore that it would "lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region.

"It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy."

As PolitiFact reported in October, she also used words such as "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality" and "high-standard" in describing the partnership before she left the State Department in 2013.

The partners finalized the deal in 2015.

Why the change of heart? In Thursday’s debate, Clinton said she opposes the trade deal because, "We have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy."


I guess it's a matter of opinion whether or not to believe her current claim to be against it. Such a 180 degree turn is hard for me to believe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #165)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:11 PM

208. The WTO-GATS trade deal Bill signed in 1995 hijacked the entire worlds public services, health care

and education are targeted, in order to keep profits rising despite changing demographics that will exclude more and more people, including the wealthy, more and more of the wealthy will be excluded too.

Also, WTO-GATS is the real reason our health care is so horrible.


its also the reason HRC refuses to support free public education.

Also, JOBS ARE GOING AWAY FOR GOOD globally, virtually all unskilled and semi skilled and eventually even high skilled jobs are vanishing- the bar for employment by mid century will be higher than virtually everybody's skill level.

So they are trying to get rid of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:53 PM

138. de-criminalizing marijuana. period. forget the medical half-way.

End any excuse for imprisonment unless a real crime was committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floppyboo (Reply #138)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:18 PM

470. such talk frightens the vodka and shuffleboard set.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:04 PM

207. Her much vaunted health care plan was a diversion from the truth which was that they were underminin

universal health care and all public services all around the world by means of the WTO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:12 PM

233. I understand her position on fracking within the United States

but I don't trust her not to push it in other countries in order to benefit Chevron, etc., given the way she pushed it as Secretary of State into countries where there was strong opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:54 PM

246. Changing the scheduling from I to II still leaves both recreational AND medical cannabis illegal at

The federal level, leaves medical marijuana users in otherwise legal states at the mercy of any future executive -aided by legislators like debbie wasserman schultz, who votes to send them to prison- that decides to "crack down".

Does Hillary support the CARERS act? Do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:15 AM

392. If she is against single payer, she is against universal health care

Her website says she is in favor of a public option, but she has never, eve campaigned on it so fat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 03:58 AM

474. Actually....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:02 PM

153. Kissinger is a big, big problem for me. I had to read his first book in college and that course

ended up in one long argument between me and the professor.

I would prefer to take the approach in international negotiation of the book Nonviolent Communication by Rosenberg before resorting to the vision of a world of hate and competition that Kissinger sees. That's the approach that should always be tried first. I am not a pacifist, but Kissinger's view of the world and of the competition and opposing interests in the world almost predicates war. I am very sorry that Hillary is so close to Kissinger. It does not bode well for peace in our world should she become president.

Cambodia is just one country that comes to mind when I think of the danger of a Hillary under the tutelage of Kissinger in the White House. Not at all promising. I have a grandson. I want a president who can work for peace without being weak. That requires great intelligence. Bernie has it. Hillary does not. Her Iraq War Resolution vote was proof. I do mention that although you asked us not to because it is so important.

Generally, the author of an OP cannot simply tell those who respond not to talk about specific matters if they are relevant to the conversation. It's how things work on DU. It's pretty free-style here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:35 PM

175. I have no idea what the other poster was saying about Kissinger,

 

but Kissinger, an unindicted war criminal, is relevant to policy since HRC claims him as a friend and advisor.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta

"I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time. So I have an idea about what it's going to take to make our government work more efficiently." A few days later, Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in New Hampshire, told a crowd of her supporters, "Henry Kissinger, of all people, said she ran the State Department better and got more out of the personnel at the State Department than any secretary of state in decades, and it's true."

It was odd that the Clintons, locked in a fierce fight to win Democratic votes, would name-check a fellow who for decades has been criticized—and even derided as a war criminal—by liberals. Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves opposed the Vietnam War that Nixon and Kissinger inherited and continued. Hillary Clinton was a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach Nixon, and one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the staff (but which was not approved) cited Nixon for covering up his secret bombing of Cambodia. In the years since then, information has emerged showing that Kissinger's underhanded and covert diplomacy led to brutal massacres around the globe, including in Chile, Argentina, East Timor, and Bangladesh.

What Clinton did not mention was that her bond with Kissinger was personal as well as professional, as she and her husband have for years regularly spent their winter holidays with Kissinger and his wife, Nancy, at the beachfront villa of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta, who died in 2014, and his wife, Annette, in the Dominican Republic.

If HRC was seeking the advice of, and vacationing with, Dick Cheney, I would like to believe that it would upset any thinking liberal. Well, Dick Cheney is Mr. Rogers next to Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is responsible for the deaths of millions.



Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels. Though we have often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and advocated different responses now and in the past, what comes through clearly in this new book is a conviction that we, and President Obama, share: a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #175)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:27 PM

290. Made me shudder. The Clintons have pulled the wool over the eyes of too many Democrats.

Remember how surprising it was when we found out that the Clintons were personally close to the Bush Crime Family? That Poppy called Bill another son and Hillary a daughter-in-law, is that forgotten?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #290)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:56 AM

357. Apparently, it is.

 

And they are perfectly fine with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zen Democrat (Reply #290)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:39 AM

399. Ronald Reagan

 

Called Ron Reagan Junior 'son' ....

And they had very different political leanings.

The 'son' thing came after Bush and Clinton teamed up for charitable work.

Imagine that, folks with diametrically opposed policy agendas burying the hatchet to do some good with the power of their collective favorabilities...


Where are my pearls, I got some clutching to do ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #399)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:04 AM

417. Shhhhh, don't let them know that people of different political leanings can actually be very fond

and love each other. My husband's best friend is a republican...not a crazy Trump or Cruz republican...and he's like a uncle/grandfather to my daughter. I have other friends who are crazy republicans, and they are like grandparents to my kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #417)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 06:05 PM

479. Are any of them named George Bush? If not, none of my comment applies to you.

It's Clinton and Bush who are thick as thieves, so to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:50 PM

272. Hillary's kind of "globalism"

Shhh!


For a deeper understanding of how migration could equalize the price of labour in two trading
countries, consider figure one (from Senior Nello, 2005:145): There are two countries, Home
and Foreign. The total quantity of labour in the two countries is shown by the distance OhOf.
Before a fully free migration is allowed the distribution of labor is OhL in Home and OfL in
Foreign. The marginal product of labour is higher in Home than in foreign because the
capital/labor ratio is higher in Home. This is shown in the figure by the higher position of the
MPLh curve compared to the MPLf curve. Because of this the wage is higher in Home, at Wh
compared with the wage in Foreign at Wf. In short: Home symbolizes a developed country with
high automatization and high wages and Foreign a less developed country with abundant supply
of labour, low automatization and low wages. If migration is fully free between the two
countries and the workers are identical workers will migrate from Foreign to Home in pursuit of
higher wages. The migration will finally result in an equalized capital/labor ratio in the two
countries and thus equal marginal products of labor and equal wages, illustrated in the figure by
the wage level W' which could be seen as the world market price of labor as the world only
consists of the two countries Home and Foreign. The migration is illustrated in the figure by the
distance LL' which is the amount of workers that will move from Foreign to Home so that the
new distribution of labour becomes OhL' in Home and L'Of in Foreign.

Wages will thus decrease in Home and increase in Foreign resulting in a loss for the indigenous
workers in Home illustrated in the figure by the area a but a gain for the capital owners of the
areas a+b. In Foreign the workers get an increased income of areas c+d+e while the capital
owners lose areas d+e. The result in total is a net gain for the two countries by areas b+c which
is a gain resulting from higher efficiency in the use of the total resources of the two countries.
This simplified model of reality shows not only that there is a net gain but also that the
migration has clear redistributional effects, something that will be discussed below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:16 PM

454. SHE BROUGHT IN KISSINGER!

 

That's not anyone's insinuation.

In response to whether she is a progressive, she ended up saying during a debate that her record as SoS received the praise of Kissinger!

Her "policy positions" are not the only relevant criteria. She changes these all the time.

More importantly, HRC has a RECORD:

- the lead hawk in the Obama administration
- pushed for the destruction of Libya without a plan for the day after, which Obama has called the worst mistake of his administration
- supported the coup d'etat in Honduras, with horrific consequences since
- pushed for an attack on Syria in 2013, which Obama nixed.
- her underlings pushed for the Ukraine coup d'etat of 2014, with the disasters there since
- as senator from New York provided essential support and echoed all the lies of the Bush administration in voting for the unprovoked war of aggression to destroy the nation of Iraq, with all the horrific consequences since.
- continues the bellicose and useless rhetoric against Iran and Russia, while fully backing the worst regime in the world in Saudi Arabia, primary state sponsor of the terrorists we supposedly fear
- the extremist right-wing government of Israel can do no wrong and must be backed at all costs

Of course Kissinger likes all that - and she CHOSE to invoke him as her mentor and supporter. In a debate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:11 PM

3. War, fracking, the TPP, student debt, cluster bombs, means-testing Social Security,

 

against Single Payer. Adding more restrictions to abortion. To name a few.

How she differs from Obama is totally irrelevant. We are voting for the NEXT president. Obama is much too corporate and Third Way for me, as a matter of fact.

Hillary differs from Bernie in those things I listed, and, to me, the things I listed are all really GOP stances.

eta - her "platform" is sort of irrelevant, too, as many of us have noticed that she will change anything and everything, according to polls and focus groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:23 PM

7. I second this

These are the reasons. They don't want answers though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:37 PM

12. Thank you. Two at a time: War and fracking.

Let's take those separately, so I can understand.

War: She does have a thorough, complex understanding of foreign policy, but she is not pro-war. She wants to strengthen alliances and work for influence through rules and institutions. About ISIS:
ISIS and the foreign terrorist fighters it recruits pose a serious threat to America and our allies. We will confront and defeat them in a way that builds greater stability across the region, without miring our troops in another misguided ground war. Hillary will empower our partners to defeat terrorism and the ideologies that drive it, including through our ongoing partnership to build Iraqi military and governing capacity, our commitment to Afghanistan’s democracy and security, and by supporting efforts to restore stability to Libya and Yemen.

If you think ALL military involvement is wrong, then you are supporting the deaths and devastation of MORE innocent people.

In fact, Sanders did support the invasion in Afghanistan, and says "while there is no question our military must be fully prepared and have the resources it needs to fight international terrorism, it is imperative that we take a hard look at the Pentagon’s budget and the priorities it has established." And, we must "Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region." Agreed.
(The rest of his outline says what we should not do, little on what we should do militarily or how allies can help.)


Fracking: Again, this is not for-or-against clean energy. Editorial in WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-war-on-clean-energy/2016/04/18/f2e0cef0-05ac-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
Mr. Sanders’s war on clean energy
Mr. Sanders has also attacked fracking, the process of fracturing shale formations deep underground in order to extract natural gas. After years of contentious debate, New York’s state government banned the technique, which drillers use widely in neighboring Pennsylvania. As with nuclear power, Mr. Sanders was not just bowing to New York environmentalists; he had long insisted that the federal government should ban fracking across the country “if we are serious about safe and clean drinking water and clean air.”

In fact, if we are serious about global warming, we will ignore Mr. Sanders’s sloganeering.

When burned, natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. The recent fracking boom contributed to a reduction in national carbon dioxide emissions over the past several years, as utilities switched from cheap coal to now-cheaper gas. It is true that some concerns remain. Methane leaks from natural gas wells and pipelines. Many worry about drinking water near fracking operations. But the government can require drillers to address these issues without shutting the industry. It is also true that natural gas is a waystation; though it is cleaner than coal, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide emissions. Yet gas’s price and emissions profile is still attractive enough that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, the most aggressive global warming policy the country has ever had, relies on gas displacing coal to meet medium-term emissions goals.


Sec. Clinton has said:
“Every child and every family in America deserves clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a safe and healthy place to live. This a justice issue. It’s a civil rights issue. And as president, it will be a national priority for us.”


So I don't see her positions as being "Republican" or "DINO."

Bernie wants to:
"Cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power."

Clinton wants to:
"Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks."
"... catalyze new investment and economic opportunity across the country, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, reduce energy bills and save families money, make our country more secure, and protect our families and communities from pollution."

Bernie wants to:
"Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil."

Clinton wants to:
"Create good-paying jobs by making the United States the clean energy superpower of the 21st century" and "Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good paying jobs and careers. Hillary has a comprehensive plan for making existing energy infrastructure cleaner and safer, unlocking new investment, and forging a climate compact with Canada and Mexico to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate clean energy deployment across the continent."

Bernie wants to:
"Return billions of dollars to consumers impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change. Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally – disenfranchised minority communities and the working poor will be hardest hit. The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change."

Clinton wants to:
"Reform leasing on public lands. As president, Hillary would reform fossil fuel leasing and significantly expand clean energy production on public lands, from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada.
End wasteful tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. Oil and gas companies have enjoyed billions in tax breaks for decades. Hillary would end those wasteful subsidies and invest in clean energy."
.... and more...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:44 PM

17. Excellent reply.

I doubt you will get a response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:43 PM

44. Fracking is terrible for the environment, sure frackers are supporting it

And denying it's impact on climate change, ground water and earthquakes. Methane is so much worse for climate than CO2 that it speeds Climate change. Hillary has supported fracking around the world thanks to her being SOS.

You post "If you think ALL military involvement is wrong . . ." I suppose you are accusing Bernie of this, then go on to show he does not think that way, that he thinks carefully about what we commit our military men and women to doing. And he won't necessarily spend so much on our bloated defense budget. That's what I want.
Hillary has allowed ISIS to be able to take over Lybia in her rush to regime change. Laughingly saying "we came, we conquered, He died."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:11 PM

160. "... he thinks carefully about what we commit our military men and women to doing."

 


Don't pretend Hillary didnt do the same.


Hillary Clinton 2002 Iraq Resolution Speech


“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation."


“This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #160)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:29 PM

171. Hillary was wrong to trust Bush. She just does not have the good judgment Bernie has.

Libya, Honduras . . . the list goes on. Hillary is not a good judge when it comes to foreign affairs. Bernie is. Probably because he watched these matters so closely for so many years. Hillary was serving on the Monsanto board. Bernie was arguing politics with his friends. It's just who they are. And her platform sounds like it was written by policy wonks not by a person who means what it says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #171)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:52 PM

181. Bernie has good judgement?

 

Then why the votes for military aid to Israel, and Egypt, the votes to go to Yugoslavia and Somalia and Libya?
Or his belief that Daniel Ortega was a good person?

How is that "good judgement?


Hillary has never served on the Monsanto board
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-sat-monsanto-board/

When she served on the board of Walmart she initiated a huge recycling program and helped women achieve better positions in management

"Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart’s management, worrying aloud that the company’s hiring practices might be discriminatory.

The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company’s top 42 officers, according to “In Sam We Trust,” the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega.

John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced “that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

"Hillary is incapable of even understanding what the issue of corporate dominance in our society means to people. She just does not get this. "
that's just not true.
She also continued working on behalf of families, co-founding Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families in 1977

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/clinton-hillary/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #181)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:19 PM

187. I agree with Bernie's votes on aid to Israel and Egypt and to go to war in Yugoslavia and Somalia.

Lee so on Libya. But Iraq was terrible.

Daniel Ortega was not a good person? Why do you say that?

Sorry. I meant the Walmart board. I am just comparing the experience of Bernie and Hillary. While Bernie was out arguing with his friends on foreign policy (as I have read), Hillary was as she has during much of her life working and socializing with very wealthy, influential people. Her view of life is shaped by those relationships. I do not criticize her for being a board member. I am just pointing out that her life has been socially limited more than Bernie's or mine or most people's. She has not lived that much in the real world.

She does not know what it means to work for a corporation, to fear being fired or to be fired just because the corporation can hire a cheaper worker to do your job say in Mexico or India.

She does not know what it is to put a child through college on an average salary.

She does not know our life.

Bernie does not know how we live either, but he knows much more about it. First, he has returned to Vermont almost every weekend for many years as he has pointed out. Second, while he earns as a member of Congress much more than the average person, he does not earn what the Clintons have earned most of their lives.

I seriously suggest you read Bernie's book, Outsider in the White House. I liked Clinton's first book about It Takes a Village, but she utterly lost me in Living History. Couldn't read very far in that book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #187)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:44 PM

451. Bernie voted for the 98 Iraq bill that called for toppling Hussein's govt.

 

Why do you agree with Somalia? and Yugo? It sounds like you're just agreeable because it's convenient for "winning" the present argument. They were wars that cost people their lives.

Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas are just another coup that took over the government in Nicaragua, and they engage in tn the same oppressive leadership as the previous leadership.


"As an anti-capitalist revolutionary, Ortega had confiscated hundreds of farms, factories and other assets. Many businessmen fled the country. Now Ortega counts them among his closest allies. He recently pushed a tax law through Congress giving a host of concessions to the wealthiest Nicaraguans and foreign investors. One provision allows the tax-free importation of yachts and executive helicopters. The flood of foreign investors now includes behemoths such as Cargill, the agro-industrial conglomerate that recently unveiled a “master plan” aimed at making it one of Nicaragua’s major food producers and distributors.

Third, and perhaps most important, among Ortega’s allies is Rosario Murillo — First Lady, chief of communications and universally acknowledged power behind the throne. While her New Age mysticism has attracted attention, critics are more concerned by her opaque style of government. Murillo rules by fiat and her decisions are rarely contradicted. Key decisions are always made in private, and some are never announced."




http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/daniel-ortega-is-a-sandinista-in-name-only.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #187)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:53 PM

452. And this is just crazy talk.

 

"She does not know what it means to work for a corporation, to fear being fired or to be fired just because the corporation can hire a cheaper worker to do your job say in Mexico or India.

She does not know what it is to put a child through college on an average salary.

She does not know our life. "


Yes , she does.

"A Typical Suburban Upbringing
The eldest daughter of Hugh and Dorothy Rodham's three children, Hillary Diane Rodham was born in Chicago on October 26, 1947. Her father, owner of a small drapery fabric business, was a staunch Republican from Pennsylvania. Her mother, a closet Democrat who left her own dysfunctional home at 14 to work as a nanny, was affectionate and levelheaded. From her parents, Hillary learned thrift, hard work, self-reliance, service to others, and a love of God and country. Her mother inculcated a deep respect for learning and coached her young daughter to fight back against bullies: "You have to stand up for yourself," she told Hillary. "There's no room in this house for cowards" (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Living History, Simon & Schuster, 2003,12). In a debate during her 2008 campaign, Hillary would credit her mother as her defining inspiration, a woman "who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind [to]."

When Hillary was three years old, the Rodham family moved into a two-story brick house in Park Ridge, Illinois. Hillary participated actively in her Methodist church, excelled in the town's first-rate public schools, and demonstrated an early interest in politics."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/clinton-hillary/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #452)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:34 AM

471. Her father was self-employed. She was the graduate of a prominent

law school and married to the governor of her state. She has no idea what it is to work in constant fear of being fired or in a tense corporate setting. No idea whatsoever.

She does not know what it means to have your job shipped overseas when you are in your 50s as do some of my friends.

She has no experience in the kind of life that ordinary Americans deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #171)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:02 PM

185. Bernie Sanders voted in favor of giving George Bush unilateral war powers following 9/11

Did you agree with that? Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War, then voted to fund it. Did you agree with that?


“In October 2002, after two years of war on the people of Afghanistan and a series of lies and misinformation, Congress and the White House (with help from Great Britain and a couple other governments) ignored the United Nations and world opinion and invaded Iraq. While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/bernie-sanders-cannot-save-us/


Rep. Barbara Lee the sole dissenting voice against invading Afghanistan.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/18/rep_barbara_lee_sole_vote_against

Where was Bernie for that one?

Crickets.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #185)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:23 PM

190. I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan assuming we were told the truth, and that is where Al Qaeda

orders were issued.

I agree with voting to fund the military in times of war.

In Los Angeles, at the Sports Center, Bernie stated that he will audit the military budget. He has ideas about what should be cut an what should not. He will, I am sure, work with the military to assess our priorities when it comes to military spending. We need a strong military. I think that I agree with Bernie on that. But we do not need some of the kick-backs and corruption that is now a part of the military budget. And that, I trust Bernie, to clean up. Bernie is not just honest. He isn't just clean. He doesn't just abhor corruption. He is extremely thrifty. His lifestyle is very thrifty. You cannot say that about the Clintons. I don't trust them. I think they are corrupt. And they are not thrifty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #190)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:10 PM

231. So you're ok if your guy does it.

I get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki (Reply #185)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:50 AM

374. He was voting to fund the troops. He stands by our troops. He is not a pacifist.

He understands that you cannot abandon troops who have been sent to war under a congressional declaration of war even if you did not vote for that declaration.

I agree with him on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #171)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:26 AM

363. It isn't judgement so much as a coherent political philosophy when it comes to international

relations. She is very much a neocon, and as such, "Academic realists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have argued that neoconservatives are part of an Israel lobby that is badly distorting U.S. foreign policy."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #160)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:09 PM

186. The Saudi involvement in 9/11 was very clear.

It did not take that much knowledge of the world and in particular relationships, countries and personalities in the Middle East to know that it was highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. We are learning more now and that is becoming very clear.

Our relationship with Iraq was already a shaky one when Hillary was in the White House. She should have known that Saddam was not behind 9/11 before she voted. She made a serious mistake.

And suggesting that we declare a no-fly zone over Syria when the Russians were already very active there? That was crazy. I do not want her making foreign policy decisions in the coming years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #186)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:14 PM

234. No kidding.

She didn't dispute that. Her mistake was taking the president at his word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #234)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:37 AM

366. And Bernie did not make that mistake because he bothered to read the documents on which

Bush was relying, the underlying papers, not the summary given to Congress. That is what i understand from what he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #160)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:58 PM

275. Hillary gave this vote to GWB and gave him the awesome responsibility, great idea.

It was obvious to me he wanted war and I didn't accept his reassurances at the time, which played out. He didn't allow the inspectors time to do their work. Hillary didn't see it, Bernie did have better judgement.

In fact even before he 9/11 Bush wanted to go back to war with Iraq.

Hillary parsed her vote to cover her rear like she does with about every issue.

Bernie thinks about the military men and women and how we are going to take care of them after they are veterans. He has a more thoughtful way about use of the military than Hillary. I was answering in the present tense as the OP asked. Ops the future and past slipped in. But you brought it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to puffy socks (Reply #160)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:14 AM

384. Hillary's Iraq War vote was most likely cast out of political

expediency. She had to know that the argument the Neo-cons were advancing was bogus. Hell, the PNACers wrote a letter to her husband in 1998 urging him to invade Iraq.

If she truly trusted Bush and the Neo-cons, then she demonstrated incredibly poor judgment and extreme naïveté. If she didn't trust them but voted "Yes" anyway, then she showed even worse judgment and displayed an appalling lack of core principles.

Her role in enabling that clusterfuck is, for me, a deal breaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:57 PM

58. The military is a great hammer

Not every problem is a nail.

Military intervention for regime change is a total failure.

Military force cannot defeat an ideology.

Massive and unnecessary military welfare spending for boondoggles is destroying our economy and our political system.

A trillion dollar modernization of America's nuclear arms program is an obscenity on every level.

Support our troops. Bring them all home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:03 PM

66. Stop all fracking now!

Methane leaks and injecting toxic chemicals into the earth are unacceptable consequences to an extraction method that is not economically productive.

Earth Day rocks! Fracking sucks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:07 PM

72. Ban all fossil fuel leasing!

Total leasing ban on all federal property.

Total ban on offshore drilling.

Leave all fossil fuels in the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meteor Man (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:38 PM

110. Easy to say.

Wonder why Senator Sanders and others haven't been successful making such a dream come true, switching to clean energy on a dime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:44 PM

117. End all fossil fuel tax breaks now!

Maybe a five year phase out with all fossil fuel extraction that continues without federal subsidies (Welfare benefits for destroying the planet).

Nobody said saving the planet would be easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meteor Man (Reply #117)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:51 PM

131. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:12 PM

161. And of course, like Obama (and I do like him), Hillary will appoint representatives from the very

industries that need to be regulated to regulate them.

A friend of Monsanto for the energy department and on and on.

A Geithner clone for the Treasury.

No. It's the appointments that decide your policy, not some vague statements on an internet website. And it is there where Hillary will assuredly fail us. In fact I think that many of Obama's big mistakes have been due to Clinton and other similar politicians' advice.

Bernie will not hire these industry hacks.

That is key. Words are not worth much.

It's who you hang out with and what you do when you are with them that matter.

Hillary is not to be trusted on that. She has a very bad record in terms of who she hangs out with. Sorry, but trust is the issue with Hillary not a lack of pretty words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:55 PM

182. "We came, we saw, he died haha."= pro war. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #182)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:37 PM

223. So much sympathy for Gaddafi on DU these days.

Someday I'll start a separate thread asking about cost/benefit analyses of tyrants' deaths.

Meanwhile, she did not kill him.

(And I would really love to see a transcript or video showing the full interview -- with the full between-scenes off-record comments like this one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #223)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:09 AM

419. You know, I thought we all didn't like him. I'm not one who wants someone to die,

but I didn't shed a tear, and I'm thinking neither did the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:43 PM

16. TPP and Student Debt

TPP: Clinton opposes the TPP.
Debate transcript:
"I voted for a multinational trade agreement, but I opposed CAFTA because I did not believe it was in the best interests of the workers of America. I did hope that the TPP, negotiated by this administration, I was holding out hope that it would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for. Once I saw the outcome, I opposed it. I have a very clear view. We have to trade with the rest of the world. We are 5 percent of the world's population. We have to trade with the other 95 percent. And trade has to be reciprocal. That's the way the global economy works. But we have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy."


On Student Debt:
Her plan is to "Ensure no student has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state," "Enable Americans with existing student loan debt to refinance at current rates," and "Hold colleges and universities accountable for controlling costs and making tuition affordable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:45 PM

19. she is also willing to put SS on the chopping block.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:05 PM

23. I don't know where you're getting that.

“Now, I will also defend Social Security and Medicare from the efforts of the Republicans to privatize both of them. When I was in the Senate, George Bush came up with a privatization plan. Some of you might remember that. It would have been a disaster. And we defeated it. As your president, I will defend it. I will not let anybody think that they can privatize it. But we're going to have to make sure that we shore it up so that it is there not just for those who are currently recipients but for generations to come.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:06 PM

25. she was for chained CPI, look it up

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to litlbilly (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:47 PM

47. I looked it up. I'm not seeing that.

In any case, I think that was removed from Obama's budget proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:46 PM

46. But if Hillary makes SS into a means tested program which is what she said,

That makes it much easier for the Repubs to dump it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:51 PM

132. Can you show where she said that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #132)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:21 PM

213. You dont get it- If GATS or the WTO says something is the way it is, THATS THE WAY IT IS

Presidents, Congresspeople, senators, legislation, etc. ITS ALL IRRELEVANT

If WTO tells us our minimum wage is a trade barrier because it keeps foreign firms made entitled by the 1995 GATS from contract work they have earned by being the lowest qualified bidder, pof there it goes, just as thats what happened with Glass-Steagall.


the whole Presidential election is a diversion from the trade deals 9there are at least five of them pending, three big ones)

Thats what is really going to cause problems.

And blogs are censoring any real discussion.

Whats happening is that we're losing democracy. HRC is a compulsive liar, its useless to communicate with her boosters because what they are and what she is selling is fascism.

She is likely just a figurehead, like Reagan, like Bush and probably like Bill Clinton too. a faceless figurehead for what is a growing corporate takeover of the planet.

And whats being done here is an attempt to goad the country into a state of crisis.

A "Great Deceivers" last laugh.

We all have to realize that we're dealing with something way over our heads - a global evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #213)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:38 PM

224. "HRC is a compulsive liar" -- this is rightwing rhetoric. Let's stay on point, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #224)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:41 PM

225. I stand by my statement

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #225)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:12 PM

232. So "let's stay on point" is a no-go. Got it.

No worries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #232)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:17 PM

236. Do you see this URL? Type it back to me.

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


Go to the URL of the PDF and read me back the content after the abstract

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #236)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:47 PM

243. Maybe you could tell me what it is.

And why I should click.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #243)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:43 PM

270. Cite seer is a archive site funded by the NSF, the article is in the International journal of health

Services

Read it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #243)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:47 PM

271. Trade Agreement Threats to Health Care Policy

ht tp://www.citi zen.org/documents/Threats_to_Health_Care_Policy.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #213)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:54 PM

273. So all that boils down to the fact that you can NOT show anywhere where she said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #273)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:08 PM

281. Do you mean in 1994, while they were signing away our public services including healthcare forever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #281)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:10 PM

283. Again, you cannot show me where Hillary said she's going to means test SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #283)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:25 PM

287. How about Bill Clinton signing a WTO deal that led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the subsequ

decimation of 1/3 of the EQUITY of the American middle class in 2008?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #287)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:27 PM

291. Again, you cannot show me where Hillary said she's going to means test SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #291)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:41 PM

300. I didnt say that, but read up on GATS Article I:3 (b) and (c) it will explain a LOT about why I hav

a very low opinion of Ms. Clinton's potential for honesty. She doesn't have an honest bone in her body.

Endorsing her would be the worst thing we could do because you now when Bernie says the system is fixed against us?

GATS is HOW that system has been fixed against us. GATS is the mother of TPP, TTIP and especially the worst of the three, TISA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #300)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:43 PM

303. Again, you cannot show me where Hillary said she's going to means test SS.

I don't really care about your opinion about Secretary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #303)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:53 PM

313. Where did I say of the sort- you have me confused with somebody else

take your sock puppet routine somewhere else. you wanted to know why voting for Hilary is non-negotiable -

No, you are just trying to de-democratize democraticunderground.com, admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #313)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:57 PM

317. No, dear. It is you who are confused. Which apparently makes you quite pissy and obnoxious.

See my post #132, and your reply to it which began our conversation.

I don't even know what you are talking about when you say I am trying to de-democratize something. But I feel certain that you don't either so I am not bothered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #303)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:01 PM

320. Show me WHERE you think I said that?

Obviously, even if trade deals say things like

""For the purposes of this Agreement…

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."


and that might have some major impact on Social Security, in the futre, for example, requiring its privatization, it makes not the slightest bit of difference WHAT Hillary says because trade deals are supranational. And she would just be President of a nation-state and so she has no power over a DONE DEAL

Even if Bill Clinton received $600,000 from the Achmea insurance company, for one speech and Achmea sued Slovak Republic for voting for and trying to implement single payer and succeeded in stopping it. did Achmea pay for that decision? No, the arbitral body and Bill Clinton are separate entities

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #320)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:37 PM

335. AGAIN, see my post #132 to which you replied, which began this conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #335)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:58 PM

341. YOU were responding to the previous poster, "all in one together"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #341)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:00 AM

342. You're kind of a loon, aren't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #303)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:49 PM

461. she's going to pick and chose who will be

treated specially for Social Security.

Hard manual labor
the poorest
Widows
Women who left the work force to have children.

How about she treat us all equally cause if you don't fall into one of those little neat categories I have just listed, our SS might not be protected the same as she proposes to protect the ones listed above.

I got this from this website:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm


Now, you can slice this and dice this any way you want, but when she decides who is going to get special treatment, and who isn't, based on certain criteria, I call that means testing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #461)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:27 PM

467. Oh, for fuck's sake. So raising the lowest threshholds of SS to benefit the poorest elderly is a

problem for you?

You should educate yourself about the meaning of means testing. This has nothing to do with means testing.

You guys are ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #132)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:06 PM

280. Can't be following her getting clues all the time to her positions

I believe it was a recent debate. She wants to make SS for those that need it most, to save money, which is means testing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #280)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:08 PM

282. So, again, you can't show anywhere where she said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #282)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:54 AM

406. Well played Squinch

 

That's some mighty fine debating....sincere kudos for running that gauntlet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #406)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:58 AM

408. It's not me, it's Sparkly doing the heavy work here. But I am beginning to see that there are

a lot of areas where Hillary is demonized for things that people are certain are written into Hillary's DNA that have nothing to do with anything she has ever said or done.

There are also a lot of areas where people are taking Bill's actions out on Hillary. She is a completely different political animal from him, and she has proven that over and over.

Maybe it's just because she was my Senator, but I don't recognize this person they are talking about, and for the most part I am not seeing any sources for their impression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #408)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:02 AM

409. She was my senator too

 

And the way they twist her record in a pretzel in the name of some Quixotic shot at the presidency...

It's hard to understand...

I don't remember 2008 being this vitriolic

Peace it's time for me to go make the donuts ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #409)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:04 AM

411. Oh, yum! Enjoy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #282)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:52 PM

462. check out this response I offered to another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #462)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:28 PM

468. Nah. Given your drivel response about means testing, I don't think it's worth my effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:08 PM

26. Hillary "says" a lot of stuff. None of it is believable any more.

 

Sorry, really, but - no sale on any of this. There is not enough lipstick in the universe.

If this is the effort to make Hillary look liberal or Progressive or even like an actual Democrat, it is a failure. No matter how eloquent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:36 PM

106. Her actions speak much, much louder than her hollow words.

 

Libya was destroyed based upon lies promulgated by Hillary's State Department. That's a deal-breaker for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #106)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:47 PM

227. I thought you guys liked a "people's revolution"

"When I look at this, an absence of action by NATO, by Arab League members, would have probably turned Libya into Syria, which I think would have been an even more dangerous situation." she told Face the Nation host John Dickerson. "I think maybe 1,500 people were killed last year [in Libya] compared to probably 150,000 in Syria."

Currently, she continued, the United Nations is leading an effort to create a "unity government" in Libya, "enabling the people of Libya to get what they voted for."

www.cbsnews.com/news/hillahe told Face the Nation host John Dickerson. "ry-clinton-defends-intervention-in-libya/

You want to storm the Bastille and ask the King what he'd like for breakfast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #227)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:56 PM

229. That made no sense whatsoever.

 

/ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #229)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:28 PM

237. Well it wouldn't, if you have your mind made up.

Thanks for putting me on the list!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #237)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:40 AM

414. Yes, we looked at issues, words, and actual deeds, and made up our own minds.

 

We didn't obediently accept the elaborate and labyrinthine Hillary-splaining.
Funny how that works, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:44 AM

401. Hillary has not "said" half the things you guys think she has said. But clearly you will not be

Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:22 AM - Edit history (1)

convinced. OK. That's fine.

However the only question now is whether you will vote for Hillary in the general or not. I know that you might not believe that, that you think there is still a path for Sanders, and that's fine, too. It's not a position I care to argue with you about because at some point in the near future you will believe it.

So if the answer is that you will, that is fabulous. If the answer is no, then, you have chosen to be irrelevant in the general election and we will all move on and part ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:21 PM

36. Well, you are giving us generalities about "why" - we'll go with the original: Bernie.

You aren't getting that are you? You think because she explains her votes away and generalizes about "now", that we should all be happy. Again, she has evolved and learned to parse everything into frankly Bernie's ideas.

Student debt wasn't even on her mind until Bernie. We heard the debates. We don't need you to tell us what she said. We'll go with the original.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:50 AM

404. Sanders has lost. Going with what you see as the original isn't an option.

And yeah, yeah, I get that you don't believe that, but soon enough you will.

And then what? I disagree that she is taking her positions from Sanders, but I won't argue with you if you choose to believe she is.

But then the choice becomes one of a candidate who you think is shamelessly copying your preferred candidate, i.e., forwarding large chunks of his agenda, or Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:16 PM

89. She started out calling it the gold standard of trade agreements

Yeah, she said differently when it was convenient, but I and many people have no faith that she won't change back when it convenient (makes her some money). That should be easy to understand in light of her saying she always supported a $15 minimum wage - she's a liar, regardless of all the excuses her supporters make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:17 PM

90. Your student loan answer is fluff

"Hold college and universities accountable...."
How???
Don't use Sanders as a wiggle. While I don't disagree that Sanders plan as shortcomings, there has been significant cognitive dissonance when it comes to her plans. They are pure fluff in major components of it. As I stated, how is she going to hold them accountable? What power or control is she going to use? What constitutes a the need? What are the triggers? What is a student's recourse?
"Refinancing existing student loan. How?? At what rate? My student loans are all through DOE and are at greater than 6%. DOE is making billions in profit from student loans. DOE should NOT be making a profit from student loans. No one should. Private lending institutions should charge zero interest for student loans and be able to write "interest" , set at a very low, fixed rate, off as a tax deduction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:34 PM

192. Her plan on student debt, as now, will require a huge bureaucracy and a lot of financial forms that

have to be filled out by families. Not all families are capable of filling out those forms.

And when parents divorce, there is sometimes confusion about who will pay for college.

Just fund the state schools and forget about charging tuition. That's the best way to make college affordable.

Hillary needs to think big and out of the box.

College should be free for all who can do the schoolwork. College is the new high school. Hillary is behind the times on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:13 PM

209. Loans are not the answer as jobs as we know them now are going away for good

at an exponentially increasing rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:04 PM

22. Cluster bombs, Social Security means-testing

Cluster bombs: I need to review this further. I understand the current ban is not really working, and I don't know the rationale for her vote. However, I am sure she is not a homicidal maniac rejoicing in injuring civilians.

Social Security: I don't see the "means-testing" problem. She wants the wealthy to pay more.
Expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today.

Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:53 PM

57. See above means testing a program (SS) becomes let's do welfare reform again.

Parsing her words again, she says "preserve", and you say expand. I'm glad she spoke of people taking time out of working for caring for others, but that could also be seen as welfare to some (including Bill who "reformed" welfare).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:17 PM

235. No, more like "the system is rigged"

She asks more from people who are wealthy.

(And the welfare-to-work matter is in the past, and not as simple as you see it now. Like NCLB, it was ok until it was NOT FUNDED by the GOP.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #235)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:18 PM

284. Right, the RW doesn't want to fund means tested programs.

The Repubs are afraid to go completely against SS now because it's so popular. Means tested programs can be smeared by saying the poor are undeserving. This has been an important protection for SS for a very long time in the Democratic Party. Repubs want us to shoot our Santa Clause --SS, so they don't have to (means testing). Their Santa Clause is cutting taxes. I forget who thought up the 2 Santa Clause theory, but Thom Hartmann talks about it frequently. Haven't the Clintons done enough damage to the poor in this country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #284)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:53 PM

312. That has nothing to do with her platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #312)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:07 PM

323. You seem to think we can trust her platform

Even when it goes against her own recent words.

I'm not naïve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #323)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:09 PM

325. LOL

Then your mind is made up and closed. This isn't a thread for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #323)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:15 AM

412. So basically, you are going to demonize her whether she agrees with you or not.

And that leaves you where? She is the candidate. So now what?

And if you are going to tell me she isn't the candidate yet, fine, I won't engage in that argument because I find it silly. But after you do accept she is the candidate "Now what?" is a question you will have to ask yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #57)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:54 AM

405. She has never said she would means test social security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:40 PM

195. Her words on Social Security translate into means-testing.

Why penalize those who saved for retirement? Social Security should provide the same benefits for all based on what goes in. There is already a maximum amount for Social Security benefits. It was somewhere a little over $2000 per month for those who constantly put in the highest amounts. That is not going to break the bank. Hillary is absolutely wrong on Social Security.

I'm on Social Security. I do not get anywhere near the maximum amount. The tax system already evens out the benefits for those who have a lot of income in addition to Social Security. I strongly disagree with Hillary about Social Security. We should raise the cap on income subject to Social Security and find a way to require that capital gains incomes -- that is people who primarily earn money from capital gains -- are included in the Social Security system. Wealth can be lost. Everyone should be covered by Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #195)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:01 PM

248. Which words, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:05 PM

24. But other than that, Brother...

...what have the neoliberals ever done to us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:22 PM

38. Last two: Single Payer and Abortion

Single Payer: She has been for universal health care ALWAYS.
What she said in 2008 was: "If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean."

Now that we have ACA -- which includes more than just dollars, but also important protections and regulations -- she said: "We share the goal of universal health care coverage. But I think the people deserve to know how this would work. If it's Medicare for all, then you no longer have the Affordable Care Act, because the Affordable Care Act is based on the insurance system. So if you're having single-payer, you need to level with people about what they will have at the end of the process. Based on every analysis I can find, the numbers don't add up, and many people will be worse off than they are now."

Abortion:
She supports choice and Roe v. Wade.
"Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion."

She is also FOR a federal exception to late-term bans for the life AND HEALTH of the woman. This has been a battle for years.

From Planned Parenthood:
Congress is considering a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks — nationwide. What’s more, state legislatures are pushing their own 20-week bans. Once again, politicians are inserting themselves in the most private and personal medical decisions best left between a woman and her doctor.

Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances — the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available.

(snip)
Unfortunately, 20-week bans are already the law in some states, so we’ve already seen what happens when politicians interfere in women’s medical decisions and tie doctors’ hands. In states that have passed laws like this, some women and their families have been put into unimaginable situations — needing to end a pregnancy for serious medical reasons but unable to do so.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/20-week-bans


And...

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Hillary Clinton

Our Nation’s Best Presidential Candidate for Reproductive Rights, Hands Down

There’s no question: Hillary Clinton holds the strongest record on reproductive rights of all presidential contenders in not just this election, but in American history. She doesn’t just support women’s health — she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to women’s health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:34 PM

42. Are you part of that Brock group that has $1mil to respond on social media?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to broiles (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:44 PM

45. Judging by the sheer number of words, I think it's a distinct possibility

 

Don't they get paid by the word?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:53 PM

56. So, when did writing in complete sentences become a bad thing?

And research, that's bad also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:09 PM

75. I was joking. I doubt there's many, if any paid hacks posting in this forum...

 

not a "target rich environment", in terms of absolute numbers, or people willing to switch candidate, and I doubt there's any undecideds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:18 PM

91. So sorry, I keep seeing about paid posters, but I think you are right about here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #91)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:45 PM

120. I don't doubt there are paid posters, just that they're here :P)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #120)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:24 PM

169. You know, I think they are everywhere for everything. Tis the times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 05:00 PM

205. Right?

I always take that as a sign of intelligence. And those pesky facts! I just found out they are "silly, narrow and simpleton (sic)" Lordy, where do these people come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to broiles (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:47 PM

49. Nope, just had a little time this afternoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to broiles (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:53 PM

136. Do you have anything to say about the facts that are being presented here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:59 PM

63. More word parsing by you and Hillary, and triangulating.

Hillary is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:54 PM

139. Which words do you feel are parsed or triangulating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:43 PM

196. I lived in Europe for years and enjoyed several of their single-payer, universal healthcare

insurance systems.

I favor either Medicare for all or non-profit only insurance companies.

I disagree strongly with Hillary on this issue based on my experience. We pay too much for medical care and much of it goes in various ways for profit. We need non-profit healthcare.

Our current system involves too much administrative cost. The cost for doctors of dealing with various insurance companies, and the problems for patients in limitations on what doctors are in your insurance group are just making our healthcare more difficult to access and expensive. Non-profit is the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:49 PM

53. Nailed it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:14 PM

4. She accepts the RW narrative on abortion

Saying she would be willing to compromise implies that republicans have a valid objection to late-term abortions. When anyone who truly respects women knows that it is a controversy invented to shame women who have or have had even 1st term abortions. She is apparently ready and willing to exploit it and the women who face demonization in the name of her own ambition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:22 PM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:49 PM

52. Not true.

She is strongly pro-choice.

Planned Parenthood endorsed her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:13 PM

85. Except when she isn't

Hillary recently said she could compromise on some abortion cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:50 PM

130. I have not seen that.

If that's about "abortion on demand up to the 9th month," it's not a serious conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #130)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:32 PM

173. Here you go

link

"Constitutional restriction that takes into account the mother's health". I see nothing about 9th month.

Her positions change depending on who she wants to get votes from, so sometimes she'll say things like this, and sometimes she'll say very liberal things. But there's no connection between her words and actions - she will change again when it's convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #173)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:32 PM

238. "I see nothing about 9th month"

because it's taken out of context.

The "compromise" was a hypothetical -- late-term abortion, which is not about to happen when the GOP is still trying to end women's choice altogether.

The sticking point has long been about the HEALTH of the woman. Republicans restrict it to the LIFE of the woman with no concern for her health.

That is the debate.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #238)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:57 PM

274. Oh, the "context" explanaition

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #274)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:53 PM

314. Okay.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #314)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:20 AM

421. Ooooooo, Sparkly, they got you...do you feel the bern

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:55 PM

142. I've seen people who are against her suggesting that, but I have never seen any credible source

that has her actually saying it. Have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:20 PM

93. Not quite.

PolitiFact reviewed Clinton's statements on late-term abortions over the years and concluded, "Clinton does not believe that all abortion should be legal. Instead, she's said she supports restrictions on late-term abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life and health are in danger." This would mean that despite being the nominee endorsed by the nation's leading pro-choice groups, she is more open to abortion regulation than Sanders.

Late-Term Abortion Debate Reveals a Rift Between Clinton and Sanders

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/hillary-clinton-late-term-abortions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chezboo (Reply #93)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:24 PM

168. Not many people support no restrictions on abortion.

Frankly, I wouldn't vote for someone who favored absolutely zero restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:51 PM

133. Actually, in recent discussions she has weinied out of most abortions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #133)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:57 PM

144. What makes you say so? I have not seen this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #144)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:03 PM

154. It was in an interview.

 

Possibly tweety. She kept walking it backwards. Acting like Roe V Wade was in question. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #154)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:07 PM

159. I've never heard this from her. Or anything like this. And I can't imagine PP would be backing her

so strongly if that were her position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #159)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:47 AM

415. Don't get me started on PP.

 

As a contributor for over 20 years I have another take on their endorsement. I am pretty disappointed to say the least, that they endorsed before the primary was over, something that has never been done before. Think about it. A candidate that believes in single payer vs a candidate that has a large foundation with hundreds of millions to donate. It's all about the money. If it were for the care of women and families I doubt they would have jumped in so early. Women in this country deserve real health care.

I will have to look for the Todd interview and watch it again. Have an awesome Saturday!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #415)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 08:53 AM

416. PP is all that stood between me and disaster many times. And that is true for millions of women.

And that has been true for about a hundred years.

Women in this country who can't afford to wait until the perfect system is put into place would be lost without Planned Parenthood. We are seeing that in action in those areas where Planned Parenthood has been driven out. Women are dying in those places.

Dissing Planned Parenthood as somehow letting women down pisses me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #416)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:08 AM

418. Don't be angry.

 

PP was there for me and I have been there with total commitment and money for the organization. Anger isn't effective or healthy but if you need to be angry direct it at the President of PP who made it so people like us could feel pitted against each other. No worries. Two strong people with different thoughts on a subject. Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #418)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:15 AM

420. Of all the things that are thrown around in this election, that is the ONE that makes me feel rage.

How dare you? And how dare you tell me what to feel?

It isn't the president of PP who pitted us against each other. It is the ignorance of people who dropped PP like a hot potato because PP dared to support the candidate who has protected them against all enemies over the years. And you have openly put yourself into that camp of enemies of PP.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #420)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:22 AM

422. I'm very sorry you feel that way.

 

We both start with a kind heart. I try not to collect enemies and feel no malice that you support what you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #422)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:24 AM

423. Rest assured. I feel great malice toward those who are making it harder for PP to raise the money

and support it needs to keep women alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #154)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:24 AM

394. I think I found the interview you are talking about. Was it the one with

Chuck Todd where she is talking about constitutional action about the third trimester? If it was, please see my response #332.

There has been a lot of misrepresentation about that interview. What Hillary was talking about in that interview actually amounted to expanding abortion rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:36 PM

193. I know she did

And many employees and supporters are furious. What prochoice person uses the term "unborn child" and says they'd be willing to compromise on abortion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #193)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:28 PM

256. Sorry. You are wrong.

You're taking it out of the context of a hypothetical that is so far off the table it's absurd (abortion on demand through delivery).

If you "know she did" something nefarious, alert Planned Parenthood. They endorsed her.

Partial quote:

"We Endorse Hillary"
Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Hillary Clinton

Our Nation’s Best Presidential Candidate for Reproductive Rights, Hands Down

There’s no question: Hillary Clinton holds the strongest record on reproductive rights of all presidential contenders in not just this election, but in American history. She doesn’t just support women’s health — she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to women’s health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about.

We live in an era where access to birth control, abortion, and services at Planned Parenthood are under unprecedented attack. With so much at stake, we can’t afford to have a president who continues these attacks — or who won’t stand strong and fight against them, no matter what.

We need Hillary Clinton, women’s health champion, in the White House.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #256)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:26 PM

288. Who other than pro-lifers say "unborn person"?

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”

Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/?page=all


You se she does validate the anti-choicers argument by not calling it out for the misogynistic demonization effort it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #193)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:02 PM

278. Everyone is using lots of angry words, but no one is providing any links that show that Hillary

wants to restrict abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to loyalsister (Reply #285)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:27 PM

289. Read the whole statement. She is saying that it could never happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #289)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:30 PM

294. She said it hasn't happened, but she's open to it if it does


Does that mean she was bluffing and would veto a bill that fits the criteria she named?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #294)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:31 PM

296. She's saying there will never be a bill that fits that criteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #296)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:36 PM

298. Direct quote from her mouth

"but I have yet to see the republicans actually do that but that would be an area where if they included health you could see constitutional action"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #298)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:25 PM

332. I see the problem here.

Are you aware that Roe v Wade only provides for unrestricted abortion in the first trimester?
And
For pregnancies in the second and third trimesters, however, the Court acknowledged states had a greater interest in regulating abortions. The Court said that states could regulate abortions to protect the health of the mother in the second and third trimesters and could enact regulations to protect the fetus only in the third trimester.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/roe-wade-case.html

The fact that the states could enact regulations to protect the "fetus only" in the third trimester means that the states could choose the fetus's life over the mother's.

Hillary is saying she would be willing to see an action that protects the mother nationwide. That protection does not currently exist.

So to have a constitutional action that protects the health of the mother in the third trimester nationwide is actually EXPANDING Roe v. Wade. What she is describing here is an expansion of abortion rights.

But, she is saying, correctly, that Republicans are unlikely ever to agree on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #332)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:22 AM

347. She enablingaccepting the narrative

that demonizes women because they choose to have an abortion. The RW put forth a claim that women were having late term abortions so often that they needed to be criminalized. By accepting the idea that it is a worthy idea, she is accepting and even perpetuating the lie that women who have abortions are so callous that they would do so well into the 9th month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #347)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:23 AM

348. She's trying to put in place a nationwide protection for women who

need late term abortions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #348)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:25 AM

349. She sold out women and children in the 90s

A belief that she wouln't do it with abortion to secure her 2nd term or and agenda item is naive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #349)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:36 AM

353. Oh, just admit that she never moved to restrict abortion rights in any way. She has been completely

consistent on this throughout her career.

And she has consistently worked to support women and children in every way available to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #353)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:38 AM

368. I'm talking about what she says herself that she is open to

The point is that she validates the ugliest beliefs about women who have abortions. It started with buying into the demonization with "legal, safe, and rare." She is very very far from feminism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #368)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 07:08 AM

390. Now you are being ridiculous. She is trying to expand abortion rights, and somehow that

makes her a non-feminist demon in your eyes.

You're drowning in right wing talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #390)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:45 AM

428. Since you are so certain

I assume you can post a link where she contradicts what she said in that interview?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #428)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:41 PM

435. I've already shown that what she said in that interview was that she wants to extend abortion rights

beyond what Roe V. Wade specified, and beyond what is in place now. So what are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:15 PM

328. so naive.

go back and educate yourself on how the reproductive rights fight went during bill's admin. we suffered our biggest losses ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #328)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:29 PM

333. Wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #328)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 09:29 AM

424. I would suggest you look at post #332. Squinch does a very good job.

And please try to remember, just because you are married to someone, doesn't mean you are the same person. She is her own individual person and should be judged a so, not judge by another man's actions. I'm finding it strange that on a liberal sight that people keep making this mistake...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to all american girl (Reply #424)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:59 PM

437. i would suggest you look at history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #437)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:24 AM

448. Hillary's history is one of absolutely consistent and strong support for women's rights, including

the right to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:23 PM

8. The way you posed your question should give you all the answer you need........

 

The fact that you have to specify that you only want to talk about what she says right at this minute, and specifically don't want to discuss past votes, legislation, or positions no matter how costly or significant indicates that you know what the issues are.....

"Aside from the glaring obvious issues with Hillary that I will point out myself, why don't you guys want to vote for her?"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:30 PM

9. The way that you refuse to answer the question

that was posed in the OP and instead divert to an attack on the poster indicates that you are either unwilling or unable to engage in legitimate debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:36 PM

10. I didnt refuse to answer at all.....

 

Clearly, you read my answer, so, you know, duh.....

What I did refuse was the silly, narrow, simpleton parameters of the OP.

You want positions?

Fracking, the banks, use of military force....

But I bet you will now want me to give you specific quotes or something to prove that she is not liberal enough......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:36 PM

194. You did refuse.

You answered Sparkly with a rhetorical question, then tore into her about how she didn't understand the issues. You did NOT address the question in the OP at all. I found that disingenuous.

And yeah, to have a legitimate discussion based on facts, you would need to give specifics. But don't bother telling me. I already know that I won't enjoy debating this with you. People who find facts "simpleton and narrow" make boring sparring partners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #194)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:48 PM

198. You clearly don't understand your own words.....

 

I refused to answer, by answering.....

In addition, I listed specific issues, and you have ignored them completely. Let me repeat that. I have listed specific issue, and you have ignored them completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #198)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 09:00 PM

247. Okay -- I see "fracking, the banks, use of military force"

all abbreviations for mischaracterizations and accusations.

Fracking -- she has a comprehensive energy plan; puts strict regulations on fracking that would protect people; combined with her broader plan, she wants to end it. (By contrast, by the way, Sanders' energy "plan" has been criticized as doing more harm than good... Refute "Mr. Sanders's War on Clean Energy" by the WaPo Editorial Board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-sanderss-war-on-clean-energy/2016/04/18/f2e0cef0-05ac-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html

"The Banks" -- I am not sure what this means. Is is that she hasn't said she'll "break up the big banks" as though there were a hatchet at hand to do it? Her plan actually goes much further, taking on the big banks AND other industries: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/

"Use of military force" -- This is history, and I won't argue the distortions. It's easy to say "She loves war! She supports killing children!" which is ABSURD. I'll just say that she is the most knowledgeable and experienced candidate on foreign policy we've seen in --- maybe ever. Her policies on national security: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

Nothing in any of that that deserves the demonization of her as a "Centrist DINO Rightwing" whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #247)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:28 PM

292. Hillary doesn't support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

And she was disingenuous about Bernie's statements that Dodd-Frank could be used to break up the banks. She said that herself earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #292)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:43 PM

302. Right. Because it's slightly more complex than that.

Her plan goes further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:36 PM

11. What specific policy do you think she spouts

 

that we can trust she will not change when politically expedient?

I don't care if she had a policy that the grass was green, she's a liar ... "sniper fire" her lying ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:40 PM

13. Her stance on Cannabis.

Secretary Clinton wants to take time to look at it further and move it from Schedule 1 and let doctors look at it further. I don't agree with her 'wait and see' approach to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DookDook (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:10 PM

28. Agreed. Her stance is what lost Colorado, Alaska and Washington.

 

Oregon is going to be all-in for Bernie, and may render Clinton unviable for that state.

We've had plenty of research proving that cannabis does no harm. 70 years of research, zero deaths caused by marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shalafi (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:58 PM

60. and the states that have legalized mj have drops in the opiate deaths

and they have money from the taxes

it is win/win except for the private for profit prison industry that hc supports

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:00 PM

64. She doesn't support the "for profit prison industry"

and has no proposals to prevent states from legalizing pot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:11 PM

81. history tells us the clintons practically invented the for profit prison industry

her super pac still takes their money

hc's "proposals" are nothing by font on a screen....i lived thru the history of the clintons and KNOW what they have done before ,they will continue

at least i know from bernie's history he really believes the things he is saying now because he has been saying same for 30 plus years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:35 PM

105. If you've decided not to believe anything she says

and have decided instead to believe things you've heard, then please don't post in a thread asking for discussion of policy positions. You've already got your fingers in your ears.

Yes, Bernie's been saying a lot (although some positions have changed). But how much has he DONE, and what could actually BE done? Talk is cheap.

That's why I am suggesting comparing straight-up policies on issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #105)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:44 PM

118. i believe what i have seen and lived thru

just like i believe vote counts are being manipulated because these activists have documented it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511809605

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #118)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:49 PM

127. I believe what I have seen and lived through, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:05 PM

69. Yes, and also a win/win for the pharmaceutical industry that hc gets $ from.

That's a major concern I have with Hillary, the money she takes and fron who. That a major part of why our government works for us less and for those with big money much, much more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:14 PM

86. yes the pharms would like nothing better than to take a weed anyone can grow

and change it to a pill form they can charge hundreds if not thousands for

good point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:32 PM

297. Exactly, then they'd be all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:25 PM

170. And drop in opiates equals less Trump supporters! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DookDook (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:59 PM

61. I don't see that as left/right.

Just a different approach. States can do what they want before Feds get involved, and meanwhile, we can see how it works economically and in other regards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 03:18 PM

166. The problem is that the federal government is already involved.

I teach at a state university in Oregon. Despite the fact that both medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are legal here, at the university both are prohibited, including having any of it in your system, even if you have a medical marijuana card and are prescribed it by your doctor. This is because universities receive money from the federal government for various purposes. As long as it remains illegal under federal law, anyone who works at the university or is a student here can suffer loss of their job or, in the case of students, possible expulsion even if they need the drug for legitimate medical purposes.

This is not a small thing or a mere technicality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DookDook (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:59 PM

150. I'm not versed in her position on recreational marijuana. I know she is supportive of medical

marijuana legalization.

Does the election boil down to recreational marijuana for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:41 PM

14. I don't think any show her as not being a democrat. I'ts a big tent.

 

She is to the left of the party on some issues and to the right on others.

Two positions she holds that I feel go against the progressive mind-set are marijuana and her vote for the IWR. There are others but those are two off the top of my head.

Sanders holds a number of positions that cannot be considered left/progressive/socialist in any way as well.


These are two individuals who do not fall into group think, yet are clearly on the right side of the isle on most issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:42 PM

15. What's her stance on the Death Penalty?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:12 PM

31. She doesn't want to abolish it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DookDook (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:03 PM

67. Which is absolutely disgusting. A real Democrat would oppose it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:06 PM

71. She'd like to see it struck down.

But she also said states can be too quick to apply the death penalty and that she “would breathe a sigh of relief” if the Supreme Court ruled against the death penalty.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/politics/bernie-sanders-courts-black-voters-at-south-carolina-forum.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:11 PM

80. This from the article:

 

"Mrs. Clinton faced sharp questions about her paid speeches, ties to Wall Street, hawkish foreign policy stances and refusal to support abolishing the death penalty. She expanded on recent comments she made about the death penalty at a town hall in New Hampshire, explaining that she supported capital punishment on the federal level only in extreme cases of terrorism or hate crimes. The shooting in June at a black church in Charleston, S.C., that left nine people dead, for example, should qualify for capital punishment, she said."

Not sure exactly how to read that. If there were a comma after the word only, it would seem as though she's stating her support for a death penalty only the feds could enforce. If the comma were after the word level, it would seem to me she's stating only a preference for what the feds could do and when, and leaving the rest up to the states.

And hey it would be cool if you could point me to the place at the link in your OP where she states she wants it abolished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #80)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:43 PM

116. She "faced sharp questions" on those issues.

I don't have time to figure out what you're saying about commas, sorry.

I count 13th paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:46 PM

20. Well first lets define liberal

Merriam Webster:
believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


:not opposed to new ideas or ways of behaving that are not traditional or widely accepted


Now we define Liberalism again from Merriam Webster:
Full Definition of liberalism

: the quality or state of being liberal


a: often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party


From Wikipedia:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation



So whats makes Hillary "not liberal" first for me would be her policy on Cannabis. A true liberal by definition would be for the legalization of Cannabis as promoting liberty, equality, free market, civil liberty, individual freedom. Prohibition just further exacerbates social inequality, violation of civil liberties, systematic racism, and oppresses the freedom of the individual.

Second would be her relationship with foreign dictators like the Saudis who are brutal dictator murderers that oppress their people, women, minorities, and religion. She believes in supplying these evil people weapons that they use to oppress and murder and wage war. Pretty much Hillary's entire foreign policy of aggression and regime change violates liberalism.

Third would be her support of the ACA and her refusal to discuss a public option. We need universal health care not mandatory health insurance.

In addition her lack of support for a living wage, her lack of support for a college education for all who want one, her willingness to compromise on restricting abortions, her support of a corrupt banking system, her support of corrupt practices on wall street, her support of fracking and pipelines and the fossil fuel industry, her support of war, her catering to war contractors and war profiteers, her belief in an oppressive intrusive police state and on and on.

She to me is much more of a Neo-Con than a liberal. They believe in complete government control of the population through a police state, Neo-Con's belief in wars of aggression for regime change. Neo-cons believe in special protections for multinational corporations and wall street. Neo-cons belief in having big money in politics. Neo-cons believe in bailing out Billionaires while the middle class families lose their homes, Neo-cons belief in using the war on drugs to oppress huge portion of the population while making private prisons huge profits. Neo-cons belief any lie is justifiable as a means to an ends. That is Hillary Clinton.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WDIM (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:50 PM

199. Excellent post. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WDIM (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 03:07 AM

383. Well said!

IMO- HRC is a Democratic version of Mitt Romney. HRC is clear on her position concerning universal healthcare and he was clear on his position that "Corporations are people" so we know/knew where they stand/stood on those singular issues but it seems that both HRC and Romney's positions on any other given issue depends on the location of the people they are speaking too at any given time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:46 PM

21. That's all we do here. How do you miss it? This says a lot about the bubble you're in.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:16 PM

35. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SHRED (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:57 PM

59. Allegedly.

The coup in Honduras matters now because history is being rewritten to drive a wedge between Hillary Clinton and her Latino supporters for political reasons.

According to the current propaganda, the deposed President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was a good Leftist. Since this is propaganda written to tug at progressive heart strings, it doesn't mention that Zelaya was "a wealthy cattle rancher" and "in fact a member of the established elite," as Spiegel pointed out when it reported on the coup in 2009. Either way, man of the people or privileged elite, the coup wasn't advisable. Honduras was governed by ruthless oligarchs for as long as anyone can remember and Zelaya wasn't better or worse than the others. In 2006, Reporters Without Borders ranked Honduras #62 in the world for press freedom. By 2009, they dropped Honduras to #128. Zelaya raised the minimum wage but it didn't help much if you were a journalist.

The President of Honduras serves a 4-year term and is constitutionally prohibited from re-election. When Zelaya reached the last year of his term, he decided to tinker with the Honduran Constitution. There was reason to believe he intended to remain in office indefinitely.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/25/1438997/-It-Takes-Fortitude-and-Hillary-Clinton-Has-It-The-Honduras-Edition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:56 PM

143. It was a military coup and our own state department said so

It doesn't matter if Zelaya was a leftist or not, there was a coup that took him out of power and out of the country, and Clinton called it legit and legal when it wasn't, opening up the country to transnational capitalists against the wishes of the majority of the Honduran people, for the enrichment of a few. Now Honduras is in chaos and the coup Clinton pretended was legal has led to power people who are assassinating Honduran indigenous and LGBT activists. Berta Caceres' assassination, a feminist indigenous environmental activist killed last month in Honduras, is one victim of the violence facilitated by Clinton's handling of the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chiquitita (Reply #143)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 06:48 PM

228. As with Libya, it seems you like the idea of a Revolution

as long as nobody gets hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #228)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:29 PM

449. uh, wha?

No. I love Honduras and Hondurans and believe we ought to respect their democratically elected governments that protect indigenous rights and their environment, rather than opening them up to exploitation of their natural resources for the enrichment of a few (Hondurans and outsiders).

My point is that the people in these countries in Central America that have suffered so much disruption and violence because of business interests, Berta Cáceres for example, expected more out of SoS Clinton and felt betrayed -- for what? For economics I guess. And I think all our politicians count on the American populace to care little for the individual lives of people in small countries such as Honduras, they expect us not to recognize our common humanity and to just call this "real politik" that's in the US's best interests so be it. It's a shame that we are deporting women and their children back to Honduras right now to instability and possibly death, don't you think? But who cares about them, right? As long as Hillary wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chiquitita (Reply #143)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:54 AM

382. Hillary said part of the coup were legal and parts weren't

That's what happened. Zelaya defied a court order. The court ordered him arrested and had the military carry out the arrest. That much was legal. The military then immediately deported Zelaya. That part wasn't legal. The legislature, which had a majority of Zelaya's own party, voted him out of office. That part was legal.

There are posts here that claim Clinton was part of initiating the coup which is absolutely false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #382)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:32 PM

450. if parts aren't legal, then is the coup legal?

She legitimated the people who deported him and called for new elections. She legitimated people who did something illegal. What happened to the Honduras who didn't want Zelaya deported? Well, the have to keep their mouths shut now or risk getting hurt or killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chiquitita (Reply #450)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:12 PM

469. What choice was there?

If Hillary wanted to affect the outcome of events she had nobody else to go to but the people who were currently in charge. Her critics say that kept Zelaya from coming back but that makes no sense, since Zaleya was voted out by the legislature. There was no way he was coming back.

Hillary's election didn't turn out well. But advocating for an election was a reasonable response to what was going on at the time. It in no way suggests, as her enemies like to allege, that she was part of some right wing plot.

If legal means 100% legal then it wasn't legal. Saying it was part both is a more accurate way of describing the coup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #469)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:17 AM

478. She decided what to do as SoS, and acted

She declared it "not a coup" after it happened because a coup is intrinsically illegal. If the US calls it a coup (which the State department was calling it for a while) then aid has to be cut off. Hillary didn't cut off aid, didn't call it a coup, asked the rest of the world to legitimate Zelaya's ousters, and put no obstacles in the way for the people who are now in power:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/13/hear_hillary_clinton_defend_her_role

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Original post)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:11 PM

29. I think they call this a hanging curveball

Let's see, she and her husband were the two people principally responsible for pulling their party to the right in the 1980's and 1990's. Did you forget about their instrumental role in the DLC and what that meant for her party? She rose up with Walmart money, surely the sign of a progressive fighter, LOL. She supported building more prisons and much harsher prison sentences (prison privatization too, individuals involved in the private prison industry were bundlers for her this election cycle). She supported all of the things her husband did for corporate interests in the 1990's, and for a long time bragged about it. That includes NAFTA, the WTO, gutting New Deal financial regulations, bailing financial capital out in Mexico in the mid 1990's and SE Asia in the late 1990's, he was working on a plan to privatize Social Security (even formed a team with Rubin, and they were far along), but then the Lewinsky affair broke, etc. She supports that trade model overall, which has been a utter disaster (as senator she voted against CAFTA but voted for the bilateral trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco and Oman). She has supported the three free trade deals under Obama (South Korea has been a disaster, Panama a now well known tax haven, more union organizers are killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined), she was in favor of the TPP until she faced Sanders. She supports that trade model, period. She supported bailing out financial capital in 2008, opposes a financial transactions tax, opposing re-instating Glass-Steagall, and opposes breaking up the banks (she says they would if they posed a systematic risk, which we already know they do, so she doesn't support it). Surely the banks being her largest donors over her career and them giving her tens of millions of dollars has nothing to do with that, cause she's Hillary. She is a pretty extreme hawk, at least by her party's standards. Not only her support for war in Iraq, her support for disastrous policies in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, Haiti and Honduras (she was called out by a well known environmental activist for this a few weeks before that activist was assassinated). She cites Kissinger's support (which should be a red flag) and now is calling for a more "muscular foreign policy" (which people are sick of, especially on the left). She also ran to Obama's right on guns in 2008, why her followers forget this is beyond me. Her strong support for fracking, actually created a group at the State Department devoted to spreading fracking worldwide (surely her support from those interests has nothing to do with this, cause she's Hillary).

I have lots more, I am sure after I post this, I will think, "Oh, should have included this or that", but this is off the top of my head. The entirety of her career in politics is her taking positions different from the left. It is inexcusable that her followers continue to ignore this. Maybe they should take it upon themselves to research this stuff and to read from sources that won't simply affirm their already held beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:03 PM

68. First sentence

"Let's see, she and her husband were the two people principally responsible for pulling their party to the right in the 1980's and 1990's."

That's the kind of mindless generality I am trying to steer the debate beyond. (I remember that time, and after Reagan/Reagan/Bush, President Clinton was a breath of fresh air. They were vilified for being radical liberals.)

Present tense. Issues, positions, proposals, platforms, goals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #68)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:10 PM

76. In the present tense....

 

They may have been labeled as radical liberals at the time, but TODAY we know different.

It boggles the mind that you want her past to not count. Boggles the mind.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 11:07 PM

322. In her recent past, she was one of the most liberal Senators in Congress

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #68)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:10 PM

79. God forbid we look back at anything not present tense, how about future tense?

Is that out of bounds too. How about future perfect, hell no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to All in it together (Reply #79)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:31 PM

101. We could go around and around revisiting the 1990s.

Generalities like "She/they pulled the party to the right" are NOT helpful and not true.

It's simply a shortcut to saying she's a right-winger, no matter what she's actually done, said, or stood for, and no matter what her stated policy positions ARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:43 PM

115. You are all over the place logically

You make arguments about "what she has actually done...or stood for", which requires looking at her actual record. Then, when you don't like what we are pointing out, you say her record doesn't matter. Would you accept this logic if it came from Ted Cruz or Trump? Give me a break. At what point does her record become irrelevant? Can you give us a ballpark? Anything before, say Seinfeld's last episode? May I suggest anything before about January of 2016? Then all we have to discuss is speeches and stuff she's said. Now we're on a terrain you feel comfortable with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaleckim (Reply #115)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:48 PM

126. I'd like to discuss her policy proposals.

I don't see anything there that is rightwing.

I don't want to hear the excuse, "But she doesn't really mean it because back in 1994..."

However, if you see something that is the last word standing on a particular policy issue, fine. If the last time she talked about food labeling was ten years ago, have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #126)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:51 PM

200. Man, this is freakin funny.....

 

You are actually coming right out and saying that only her most recentest of the most recentest statements are allowed.

We are not allowed to hold anything against her except what she is saying RIGHT NOW.......Good luck with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sivart (Reply #200)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 07:05 PM

230. That's correct.

Because otherwise, we can get into a going-nowhere discussion of who said what when and why.

That's an easy way to take complex decisions and issues and over-simplify them into nothing but slogans that sound good.

Circumstances change, and if people change their minds, I think that is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Implying that it indicates insincerity shows bias, not fact. And assuming that a single vote on a complex matter automatically indicates a craven, corrupt worldview is simplistic.

Several people have said outright in this thread, "I don't care what she says -- I do not believe a word she says."

THAT is a closed mind and a victory for the rightwing. I don't want to waste time debating closed minded people or right-wingers.

So I'm looking at the essential facts now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:57 PM

202. I wouldn't vote for GWB because of what happened during his presidency in addition to the

fact that he is a Republican.

What the Clintons did in the 1990s is relevant to our decisions about voting or not voting for her and that is especially true because Hillary counts those years when talking about her experience.

We are not impressed with a number of the key policies of Clinton during those years. They have not worn well over time. I don't need to go into details. Clinton signed some bills that have had terrible consequences for our country starting with NAFTA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #202)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 08:33 PM

239. GWB, and any other past presidents, are not at issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #239)

Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:39 AM

369. But the principle that when you hire someone, you ask for a resume and you look to see

whether the applicant's past work history suggests success in the position for which you are thinking of hiring her. In Hillary's case it does not in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sparkly (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 22, 2016, 10:45 PM

306. You are saying that the Clintons didn't pull the party to the right?

DLC or From ring a bell?