2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat 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/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)No, we can't make progress, she says
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)"No, we can't make progress." ??
Edit: Kissinger... I am asking about specific policy positions today, not innuendo or insinuations.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)
Squinch
(51,053 posts)
All in it together
(275 posts)She was against it after the talk, until she became a Senator.
Warren is on YouTube talking about it.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
All in it together
(275 posts)Probably not on the Hillary forum.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)it is some bill that lots of people on DU have talked about? You can't provide any more specific information?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Do you always go straight to some daft innuendo like this one?
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)..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 ~
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)
She killed Kenny
Squinch
(51,053 posts)
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)
All in it together
(275 posts)Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton and Bankruptcy
On YouTube.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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/
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)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.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)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 ~
floriduck
(2,262 posts)her stance on legalizing medical marijuana, her support of fracking. . . .more if necessary.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)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
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)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.
Loki
(3,825 posts)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!!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)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?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)This is why I am asking for discussion on the candidates' stands on issues.
"Gut feelings" can lead to bad things. Just sayin'.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)Time for change
(13,718 posts)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
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)End any excuse for imprisonment unless a real crime was committed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)universal health care and all public services all around the world by means of the WTO.
femmedem
(8,208 posts)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.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)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?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Her website says she is in favor of a public option, but she has never, eve campaigned on it so fat.
Joob
(1,065 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)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
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)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?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)And they are perfectly fine with it.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)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 ~
all american girl
(1,788 posts)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.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)It's Clinton and Bush who are thick as thieves, so to speak.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)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!
djean111
(14,255 posts)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.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)These are the reasons. They don't want answers though.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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...
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I doubt you will get a response.
All in it together
(275 posts)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."
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)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.”
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)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/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)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
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)"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/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Loki
(3,825 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Loki
(3,825 posts)I get it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)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."
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She didn't dispute that. Her mistake was taking the president at his word.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bush was relying, the underlying papers, not the summary given to Congress. That is what i understand from what he said.
All in it together
(275 posts)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.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)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.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)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.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)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!
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Total leasing ban on all federal property.
Total ban on offshore drilling.
Leave all fossil fuels in the ground.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Wonder why Senator Sanders and others haven't been successful making such a dream come true, switching to clean energy on a dime.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.)
all american girl
(1,788 posts)but I didn't shed a tear, and I'm thinking neither did the people.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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."
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)“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.”
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)In any case, I think that was removed from Obama's budget proposal.
All in it together
(275 posts)That makes it much easier for the Repubs to dump it.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)nt
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)No worries.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Go to the URL of the PDF and read me back the content after the abstract
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)And why I should click.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Services
Read it
Baobab
(4,667 posts)ht tp://www.citi zen.org/documents/Threats_to_Health_Care_Policy.pdf
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)decimation of 1/3 of the EQUITY of the American middle class in 2008?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)I don't really care about your opinion about Secretary Clinton.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)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
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)I was just pointing out that you were on thin ice trying to disassociate Hillary from her husbands trade deals which are still in force and last forever.
Somebody would find it very difficult to find a more disgraceful and destructive agenda than that of the WTO attack on public education.
http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf
http://thewire.in/2015/07/17/how-the-us-is-using-a-secret-agreement-on-services-to-wriggle-out-of-its-wto-obligations-6459/
https://sabrangindia.in/article/education-all-keep-out-wto-gats
http://peoplesdemocracy.in/2015/1018_pd/keep-education-out-wtogats
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.in+India+GATS+WTO+education&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=india+wto+gats+education+services&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://newsclick.in/international/wtogats-plans-make-education-tradable-commodity-what%E2%80%99s-next
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=894826
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-07-11/news/64308981_1_general-agreement-education-sector-service-charges
http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/04slr
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/National-convention-against-higher-education-offer-to-WTO-GATS/articleshow/50059201.cms
How do you sleep at night?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Karma13612
(4,555 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
All in it together
(275 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)That's some mighty fine debating....sincere kudos for running that gauntlet
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)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 ~
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Karma13612
(4,555 posts)DU'er up above
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511809404#post461
Squinch
(51,053 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)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.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Libya was destroyed based upon lies promulgated by Hillary's State Department. That's a deal-breaker for me.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)"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.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)/ignore list.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Thanks for putting me on the list!
djean111
(14,255 posts)We didn't obediently accept the elaborate and labyrinthine Hillary-splaining.
Funny how that works, eh?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)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.
angrychair
(8,738 posts)"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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)at an exponentially increasing rate.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
All in it together
(275 posts)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).
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.)
All in it together
(275 posts)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?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)All in it together
(275 posts)Even when it goes against her own recent words.
I'm not naïve.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Then your mind is made up and closed. This isn't a thread for you.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...what have the neoliberals ever done to us?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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
broiles
(1,370 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Don't they get paid by the word?
all american girl
(1,788 posts)And research, that's bad also? 
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)not a "target rich environment", in terms of absolute numbers, or people willing to switch candidate, and I doubt there's any undecideds.
all american girl
(1,788 posts) jack_krass
(1,009 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts) 
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)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?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)All in it together
(275 posts)Hillary is that you?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Faux pas
(14,698 posts)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She is strongly pro-choice.
Planned Parenthood endorsed her.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Hillary recently said she could compromise on some abortion cases.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)If that's about "abortion on demand up to the 9th month," it's not a serious conversation.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)"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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
all american girl
(1,788 posts) Squinch
(51,053 posts)that has her actually saying it. Have you?
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
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Frankly, I wouldn't vote for someone who favored absolutely zero restrictions.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Possibly tweety. She kept walking it backwards. Acting like Roe V Wade was in question. Sorry I can't be more specific.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)so strongly if that were her position.
peace13
(11,076 posts)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!
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
peace13
(11,076 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
peace13
(11,076 posts)We both start with a kind heart. I try not to collect enemies and feel no malice that you support what you do.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)and support it needs to keep women alive.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)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.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)wants to restrict abortions.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Does that mean she was bluffing and would veto a bill that fits the criteria she named?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)"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"
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Are you aware that Roe v Wade only provides for unrestricted abortion in the first trimester?
And
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.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)need late term abortions.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)A belief that she wouln't do it with abortion to secure her 2nd term or and agenda item is naive.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)consistent on this throughout her career.
And she has consistently worked to support women and children in every way available to her.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)makes her a non-feminist demon in your eyes.
You're drowning in right wing talking points.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I assume you can post a link where she contradicts what she said in that interview?
Squinch
(51,053 posts)beyond what Roe V. Wade specified, and beyond what is in place now. So what are you talking about?
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)go back and educate yourself on how the reproductive rights fight went during bill's admin. we suffered our biggest losses ever.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)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...
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Squinch
(51,053 posts)the right to choose.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Sivart
(325 posts)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?"
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)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.
Sivart
(325 posts)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......
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)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.
Sivart
(325 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
All in it together
(275 posts)And she was disingenuous about Bernie's statements that Dodd-Frank could be used to break up the banks. She said that herself earlier.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Her plan goes further.
beedle
(1,235 posts)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.
DookDook
(166 posts)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.
shalafi
(53 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)and they have money from the taxes
it is win/win except for the private for profit prison industry that hc supports
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)and has no proposals to prevent states from legalizing pot.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)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
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)just like i believe vote counts are being manipulated because these activists have documented it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511809605
Sparkly
(24,162 posts) All in it together
(275 posts)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.
questionseverything
(9,663 posts)and change it to a pill form they can charge hundreds if not thousands for
good point!
All in it together
(275 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
potone
(1,701 posts)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.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)marijuana legalization.
Does the election boil down to recreational marijuana for you?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)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.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DookDook
(166 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I don't have time to figure out what you're saying about commas, sorry.
I count 13th paragraph.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)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.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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
Chiquitita
(752 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)as long as nobody gets hurt.
Chiquitita
(752 posts)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.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)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.
Chiquitita
(752 posts)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.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)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.
Chiquitita
(752 posts)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
kaleckim
(651 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)"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.
Sivart
(325 posts)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.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)All in it together
(275 posts)Is that out of bounds too. How about future perfect, hell no.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
kaleckim
(651 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
Sivart
(325 posts)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 
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)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.
All in it together
(275 posts)DLC or From ring a bell?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)The country was going right because of the merger of fundamentalist Christian religion with rightwing politics, as well as the "don't worry be happy" Reagan era... Democrats were demonized, to say the least.
Dukakis and Mondale didn't win.
The one palatable alternative, to much of America, was Clinton who was southern, Baptist, and not TOO radical, but guess what -- he WAS too radical. That is why he faced uphill opposition every step of the way, more antagonistic than what Obama has had to deal with even, and that's saying something.
So, no. The country moved to the right. Clinton's presidency restored some sanity, helped a LOT of people, and got the economy going in the right direction. HE -- or "The Clintons" (LOL) did not "pull the party to the right."
kaleckim
(651 posts)She rose up on Walmart/Walton money. They were majorly funded by the banks, which is reflected in the policies they supported. They DID play a major role in pulling their party to the right, this is not debatable, our country moving to the right was majorly impacted by the party that was on the left on some economic issues being pulled to the right. There really was no longer an alternative being offered on economic issues. She also hasn't changed a single bit, I gave a number of examples since that time that shows how consistent her positions have been over the years. All you have is words she has said recently, and I could give a damn what she says in a speech or on her campaign page. What matters more is what she has done and the policies she has pushed for since entering politics.
her record, over the entirety of her career, is "mindless"? Whose mind are we talking about here? I gave you her record over the course of decades, things she has supported up to a matter of months ago (foreign policy decisions, the TPP, the free trade deals, getting massive amounts of money from banks and corporate interests), and you want us to ignore that because of some words she says in a speech or some posting online. THAT is mindless. If I made this argument to you in regards to a Republican you wouldn't accept it. Would you accept me ignoring Ted Cruz's record because of what he is saying in speeches or online now? That isn't a matter of logic, sorry, it is a matter of psychology, and emotional attachment.
Notice too how you just respond to the first sentence and ignore everything else I said. At what point in the past does her record start to not matter now? Can you give us a timeline? Just to let you know, this is not a winning argument with the general public. You don't win by making this argument when people don't trust her. That is one reason, among many others, I think she is a very weak candidate. She has a great resume, is very smart and tough, but a bad candidate in the general election. However, the Republicans will be worse. Wonderful political system we have.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I'm not reading your posts past the first sentence -- sorry -- because I'm not playing that game.
You're generalizing, inferring, drawing false conclusions, implying motives, and defending a viewpoint that you have (one that I think is biased) when I have asked simply to debate the two candidates' stated policy positions.
kaleckim
(651 posts)This is pathetic and indefensible. And me saying that shouldn't be flagged. You can't ask people to provide you this information but then arecompletely unwilling to deal with actual facts and objective reality. This is exactly why she isn't trusted, and it is clear you people cannot defend her. You aren't helping her or your argument by basically just sticking your head in the sand.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)when you make such sweeping statements.
kaleckim
(651 posts)what you want is for us to ignore her decades long history (I started from the start of her career and went to the present, so a consistent, decades long record) and to instead go to her web page to see all the wonderful things she promises to do. That, again, relies on people trusting her and ignoring her actual record and the fact that she is largely bankrolled by giant corporations, their lobbyists and the rich. It isn't my fault, or anyone else's fault on the left that doesn't support her (should be everyone), that you chose a candidate with her record, as corrupt as she is, and that you chose a candidate that isn't trusted. You did though, and you cannot defend her, you just want to put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" when someone says something (factual) that you don't like.
Again, you wouldn't accept your logic if a Republican said it, you wouldn't, nor should you.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie, the Bernie or Bust crowd, and who do not want to vote for Hillary, have really solid reasons for feeling as we do and thinking as we do. Hillary is just a weak candidate. For those who have thrown in with her, it's tough to read our posts.
Hillary boasts of her experience. Her experience sucks. So be it.
Thanks for your post. That was a very substantive post.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We take what we get here. Relevancy is not the kind of objection that works here.
And the person who posts the OP does not get to dictate the content of the responses.
As long as everyone is polite and we don't quote from certain sources or say things that are against the Democratic Party, then we are pretty much OK.
But we don't get to define the parameters of the discussion in the OP. Sorry.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I'm not going to engage in discussions that aren't answering my query.
You are free to type away. Echo chambers are fun, I guess.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Has started on DU...
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Sanders: Legalize marijuana.
Clinton: No.
Sanders: Make state universities tuition-free.
Clinton: No.
Sanders: End mandatory minimums.
Clinton: No.
Sanders: End the death penalty.
Clinton: No.
Sanders: Ban fracking.
Clinton: No.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She's not against states legalizing pot. She isn't ready to do it at the federal level, nor is Congress, most likely.
I addressed the other issues above.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Regarding what states should do:
In the first debate, they were asked if they'd vote for the NV ballot measure to legalize marijuana if they were Nevada residents.
Sanders said, "I suspect I would vote yes," and Clinton refused to say.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/10/13/cnn-democratic-debate-full-transcript/
It's accurate to say that Sanders wants to legalize marijuana and Clinton doesn't.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Sounds good, though.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Looks like a tie, but we can call it for Hill if you want!
all american girl
(1,788 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts).....that's right, there is none.
all american girl
(1,788 posts) peace13
(11,076 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)you are making my head spin....or it just may be the crappy flu thing I got going on.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)list as Bernie suggests.
Bernie has not stated that he would outright legalize it. If he takes it off the federal controlled substance list, a state could choose to make it illegal.
A subtle difference, but a difference.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)without the Big Bad Fed cracking down on pot as a controlled substance. 
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)It's a cash business because the store owners can't use banks because of federal laws.
The store owners also can't deduct what they pay their workers like most businesses because pot is federally illegal.
Legalization would be going better in those states if pot were federally legalized as Sanders wants.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Just need the right revolution?
Her stand is NOT a rightwing neocon dishonest position. That's all I'm saying.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)HRC wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment. I agree with that and so does Bernie Sanders, but it's not close at all to happening.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She knows when the dreaded "incremental progress" is the only progress possible.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Benie is right on this. We need to have marijuana removed from the controlled substance list at least until some reason is found to keep it there.
dr60omg
(283 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's odd that I am asking this because I have utterly no interest personally in marijuana, but I see the problem that it is still illegal under federal law if it is on the controlled substances list, and the FBI can arrest people for it even if state law allows it.
Obama has simply tried not to enforce that federal law too much, but there is a conflict there that needs to be eliminated.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
Nobody is messing with the states that have decriminalized it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)federal laws on the topic. It's just that Obama has not wanted the federal government to do that.
It's possible that a court could decide that those federal statutes do not pre-empt the state laws but I doubt it.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts) Be serious.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)However, we may get a president someday with a different attitude. Chris Christie promised to crack down on pot in Colorado.
One of the reasons state governments are reluctant to legalize, and the people have to use initiatives to legalize pot in their state, is that governors don't want state workers arrested by a future president.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)All in it together
(275 posts)their state lines.
Our state won't legalize medical marijuanna for god's sake.
Thanks but no thanks on the states deciding. States deciding slavery wasn't good either.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)It just goes on and on.
Why are progressives vilified for wanting a progressive candidate?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I just think 1) saying and doing are two different things, and 2) the hatred of HRC is irrational. I haven't been proven wrong so far.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)as hatred. But whatever.
Is all dissent hate speech?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)And I'm inviting it in this thread. But I've read too many things here that are nothing short of hateful.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What you are discovering is that not only do Bernie's supporters like Bernie, but we distrust Hillary. We strongly distrust her. And we do think about and judge her about what happened during the 1990s and the Clinton administration.
She is choosing to run. She needs to realize that a lot of people don't trust her. The polls prove that. It isn't just Bernie supporters on DU.
She has a problem and I don't think there is anything she can do about it. A lot of people won't vote for her. A lot of millennials are not strong Democrats and are sure not to vote for her for that reason.
Her poll numbers are not high. It isn't just here. Sorry, but that is the reality.
And I disagree with her views on a number of issues especially the NSA surveillance and foreign policy. But also on health care. I do not think we need for-profit health insurance companies as the dominant health care companies in the US. I do not like the basic principles of most if not all of our trade agreements. Trade is one thing. The trade agreements are quite another.
I have profound disagreements with many of her stances. And what is more, her issue statements are written in such vague language that reading them is enough to make you suspect that she is not being on the up and up with you.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)to discuss policies alone.
Which seems to show how much the hatred of her is based on emotion.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Everyone has faults. I have told you that I disagree with her on NSA and other government surveillance, on the TPP and her reasons for saying she dislikes it, her foreign policy especially on Syria and the no-fly zone. I don't agree with means-testing either Social Security or free tuition to state colleges and universities. And those are just a few of the policy issues on which I disagree with her.
But Bernie is extremely sincere, decides things based on his sense of social justice, his values and his morality. I do not have the sense that Hillary does that at all.
Oddly, I have a lot in common with Hillary including a Methodist upbringing and my gender.
But the sense and value of social justice that I owe to a great extent to that Methodist upbringing means that my number one issue after the environment is the disparity in wealth. We have to do something about that. I don't think that Hillary really understands how important that is. I used to work for quite a few years for a homeless nonprofit. The number of homeless people in California is just unacceptable. That is the result of the increasing disparity in wealth. The middle class that could be a bit of a buffer, that could share space with homeless relatives for instance, no longer has the means to do that Meanwhile the extremely wealthy are just wallowing in excess. Many homeless people here in Los Angeles while the very, very wealthy build megamansion. I am not angry at individuals who are wealthy. I appreciate the hard work that has often made them wealthy. But to be so callous toward the many indigent people in the area when you personally have so much wealth is just beyond my comprehension
I do not think that Hillary is unaware of the disparity of wealth. I think she is just avoiding the topic because of her belief that she cannot do anything about it. I also think it is not on the top of her to-do list because she honestly believes that just "growing" the economy will solve the problem. If that were the case the problem would have been solved long ago. Wealth disparity is the issue that Hillary is weakest on. NSA surveillance next. And then all the other issues on which she really is just sub-par.
If Bernie hadn't thrown his hat in the ring, if he weren't so strong on these issues of great personal importance to me, I as a woman might be saying to myself, well, I can compromise. But it is this time not a time for compromise in my view. I am 100% for Bernie.
I know it is hard to accept that other very rational people do not agree with you, and I agree that for me supporting Bernie is partly an emotional decision but it is as usual with such things a bit of a mix.
Hillary does not have the warmth as a human being that Bernie has. She is more self-conscious in a negative way than Bernie. She seems more insecure and more in need of approval. At the same time, she seems to seek to shield herself from criticism. These are personal traits that she probably cannot do much about. That's who she is.
I have asked Hillary supporters questions similar to the question you asked of us Bernie supporters and gotten no substantive answers with one exception. So Bernie supporters are making more of an effort to answer your question than the Hillary supporters have made when I asked similar questions.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)which is why I'm not interested in your post.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)So disagreement is "irrational"?
Hooooookay
I see no rational basis for it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I have to use a password to get into my computer. I believe that I have an expectation of privacy as to anything on or sent from my computer. The NSA or any other government agency should have to get a warrant to get at the information on my computer or e-mails. I think that obtaining the content of conversations on my phone should also be subject to a warrant, a subpoena. I think that Edward Snowden did a great service to the world and Americans when he told us of the activities of the NSA.
This is an important issue to me. A lawyer's confidential relationship with a client is breached when an agency of our government can simply listen in on or otherwise hear the content or even see at any time with utterly no probable cause for doing so the calls or even fact of the calls between a lawyer and a client.
I strongly disagree with Hillary on this issue.
We forget that laws can be long. The fact that individuals violated laws in some cases have played positive roles in our society. The early revolutionaries were violating tax laws and import controls set by the British which was like it or not the government at that time. That's why they included the 4th Amendment first in the Mass. Constitution and then in our US Constitution. And as we are discussing Harriet Tubman at this time, it is appropriate while on the hand to look up to her as an example of someone who fearlessly did what was right also recognize that she was breaking the law while doing it. Peaceful resistance has always been a part of our progressive movement.
The NSA spying makes progressive movements potential objects of surveillance by virtue of the fact that we think ahead and stand at the forefront of movements that may be using peaceful resistance methods.
I do not like Hillary's view on the NSA surveillance and Edward Snowden. I don't have an opinion as to how Snowden should be treated should he return to the US, but I appreciate his honesty and his warning to us about what our government was doing.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)or the illegality of seeing individual correspondence without a warrant.
She's not proposing anything rightwing or neoliberal or DINO on this.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)tells me all about her views that I need to know. I consider that view to be right-wing and neoliberal. It's an affront to our human rights. This is a serious matter for me.
kaleckim
(651 posts)You have actually. I gave a long list of things she has done, things she has supported, and you proudly announced that you were sticking your head in the sand and refused to read past my first sentence. Why, because I talked about her instrumental role, along with her husband, in pulling the Democrats to the right in decades past. Say whatever you want, but you can't deny this, this is common knowledge, and beyond question. Kind of sad to see someone not read an opposing viewpoint, then announce that they haven't been proven wrong. Of course you weren't, because when someone was showing you the evidence you chose to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and said "la la la, can't hear you."
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)that can never happen and to launch broad damning criticism about the status quo since he has no chance
of ever having to actually to carry any of it out. Hillary can't afford to do any of that.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)And Jeff Merkley
And Nina Turner
And Robert Reich
And Spike Lee
And Bronx Councilman Richie Sanders
Tulsi Gabbert
Keith Ellison
Alan Grayson
And check here for a whole lot more just in government ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016
But of course you're smarter than they are.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)of the promises he's making. I'm guessing that the people on your list probably feel the same way.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Do you hear yourself? You know, even he admits it takes work, bringing more dems into Congress, and lot of public support. He's not naive. But you seem to think it's black and white and impossible. What's with that? To "assume" that that list of people - all intelligent and hard working and most public servants - don't think his platform can be accomplished is pretty negative and even irresponsible and certainly offensive. I'm wondering if you might be a paid HRC responder because your post makes no sense.
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)Who the fuck are you to accuse me of anything.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)What more do HRC supporters need than Bernie people saying he can't do what he says he'll do. That sounds very broken to me. Sorry your upset but the talk doesn't match the claim. BTW, I don't care how long you've been here. That doesn't preclude you from being a disingenuous Bernie supporter for Clinton. That's what paid tools do. So, you're not paid but you are doing it for free?
Isn't it nice that you and Sparkley agree?
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)ideals into campaign promises is something else entirely.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Have some faith and trust. He is the last person who will want to become a President who fails. That's not Bernie. You must know his background. Read my response to Nurse Jackie where Merkley talks about Bernies victories on this thread. And you must have read this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Honestly, if you support him, quit giving people reasons not to vote for him. Can you see this: even the Bernie supporters don't think he can do what he claims... C'mon.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)things. The same way he did as mayor of Burlington. The same way he has for years.
86% of the Democrats in Vermont voted for Bernie in this primary. 86%
Now that is what they call winning a state.
And why did they vote for him in those numbers. Because he delivers. That's why.
Read the book.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I would be interested to know if I'm missing something he's done in Washington.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)much in Washington is the support he has from the Democrats of Vermont. 86% in the primary this year. How can anyone argue with that. He works for his constituents. I have a very good member of Congress, Xavier Becerra. He also wins by large margins. Bernie is that kind of Congressmember. He focuses on working for the people he represents.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Wow ... that really says a lot right there. Almost all but one of the men and women who know him the BEST have taken a pass.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)MERKLEY: Well, actually, I think that`s way off the mark. Bernie`scomments are deeply listened to and widely respected and he has this recordof effectiveness that many people are aware of, particularly those whoserved in the House. When he was mayor of Burlington, he preceded toreshape the waterfront. He had a baseball team. He set them up as a
lovable city, as a kind of a model for the nation.
When he was in the House, out of 435 members of the House, he was known asthe king of amendments, the single House member most effective in getting amendments past, and these were things relevant to working Americans.
And in the Senate, he has proceeded to be the leader on expanding ourfederally qualified health centers, which are the front door for millions of Americans to our health care system. And he put together a bipartisanveterans bill that is the most important veterans bill we`ve had in years,and he`s taken the lead and taken on chained CPI to make sure that ourseniors didn`t get shortchanged. And the list goes on. So –As Merkley said to Hayes, "I'm not a good politician." I waited to see how my state would vote.
I don't think you read threads that provide evidence for Bernie's candidacy and support from colleagues and mainstream supporters. All over DU are posts that show reasons why Hillary captured SD early just like she did in 2008. Your posts are always short and very black and white and negative to him. Rarely do you talk about issues. Why is that?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
:-Psnowy owl
(2,145 posts)Long list. Impressive if you want to be informed. And you didn't respond to SD's changing to Obama in 08. Lots of holes in your opinions.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)But, as I've mentioned on numerous occasions ... Bernie will not be the nominee. It's pure fantasy to believe that he's capable of overcoming the odds. At this late date, he'd need more than mere "wins" and more than "blowouts" and more than "landslides" ... it would have to be consecutive "SHUTOUTS" to have any chance of being selected for the party's nominee.
All this other arguing and bickering is just background noise and won't make a bit of difference in the outcome. I suppose it's fun an entertaining in a way, but in the scheme of things, it's totally inconsequential.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)You can say anything.
Think Ralph Nader.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Why should she only talk about the limited things she thinks she can do?
This is a campaign. We want to hear what she wants to do, not all this negative stuff about what the Republicans won't let her do.
We want goals we can work toward. We want to know how she plans to pay for things. Bernie having served on the budget committee is very specific about that contrary to the lying news reporters.
This is a campaign. Let's set our goals and then fight for what we think is right.
That is the problem with the Clinton political strategy. They are so negative and then of course they can't get much done that is really worth doing. We saw that in the 1990s.
Big hullabaloo about new programs, Clinton signing laws, and when the laws went into implementation, the results were disastrous. No more Clintons.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Thats whats SO outrageous here!
-------
Joint Declaration on Higher Education and
the General Agreement on Trade in Services
LIST OF SIGNATORIES
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
(AUCC), representing Canada’s 92
public and private not-for-profit universities and degree-level colleges;
American Council on Education
(ACE), representing 1,800 accredited degree granting
colleges and universities in the United States;
European University Association
(EUA), representing 30 national Rectors’
Conferences and 537 individual universities across the European continent;
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
(CHEA), representing 3,000 accredited,
degree-granting colleges and universities and 60 recognized institutional and
programmatic accreditors in the United States.
INTRODUCTION
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a multilateral, legally
enforceable agreement covering international trade in services. Education services,
including higher education, are one of the 12 broad sectors included in the agreement.
We, the above associations, put forward the following declaration with respect to the
GATS and trade in education services:
PRINCIPLES
Whereas:
Higher education exists to serve the public interest and is not a “commodity”, a
fact which WTO Member States have recognized through UNESCO and other
international or multilateral bodies, conventions, and declarations
. The mission of
higher education is to contribute to the sustainable development and improvement of
society as a whole by: educating highly qualified graduates able to meet the needs of all
sectors of human activity; advancing, creating and disseminating knowledge through
research; interpreting, preserving, and promoting cultures in the context of cultural
pluralism and diversity; providing opportunities for higher learning throughout life;
contributing to the development and improvement of education at all levels; and
protecting and enhancing civil society by training young people in the values which
form the basis of democratic citizenship and by providing critical and detached
perspectives in the discussion of strategic choices facing societies.
1
Given this public mandate, authority to regulate higher education must remain in
the hands of competent bodies
2
as designated by any given country
.
Nothing in
international trade agreements should restrict or limit this authority in any way.
1
Taken from UNESCO
=
s 1998
World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and
Action
2
The term “competent bodies” is used in order to take into account the fact that in any given nation, authority for
higher education rests with different levels of government, institutions, and organizations.
Education exports must complement, not undermine, the efforts of developing
countries to develop and enhance their own domestic higher education systems
.
While international cooperation and trade in educational services can present
opportunities for developing countries to strengthen their human resources, trade rules
must not have the effect of imposing models or approaches to higher education on
nations or of weakening their own national systems.
The internationalization of higher education is integral to the quality and
relevance of the academic endeavour and research mission in the twenty-first
century
. For most institutions, international trade in higher education is an important
component in attaining higher education’s mission. For these institutions, education
exports such as international student recruitment or the delivery of higher education
programs across borders through distance education are part of a broader set of
international activities which include faculty and student exchanges, research
cooperation and capacity-building initiatives in developing countries.
Quality is a key objective for both domestic provision of higher education and
international education exports, irrespective of the mode of delivery
. Appropriate
quality assurance mechanisms administered by higher education institutions under the
competent bodies must exist to ensure that quality is not compromised. These
mechanisms need to be transparent and widely understood.
International higher education cooperation must operate under a rules-based
regime
.
WTO Member States have already established mechanisms to achieve this
objective, in fora such as UNESCO, including international conventions on the
recognition of academic credentials and a network of national information centres on
foreign credentials.
These mechanisms need to be further developed and their
implementation better supported by our respective governments to protect learners.
Higher education differs significantly from most other service sectors
,
in that
because of its public mandate there is typically a high degree of government
involvement in higher education provision co-existing with private funding and
commercial activities. This public/private mix permeates not only the sector but,
indeed, the individual institutions within it.
Public and private higher education systems are intertwined and interdependent
.
Therefore it is impossible to effectively separate out certain sub-sectors e.g., adult
education, or certain types of institutions e.g., "private providers", for the purposes of
the GATS without impacting other parts of the system.
Caution must be exercised
before putting the quality, integrity, accessibility and
equity of our higher education institutions and systems at risk without obvious benefit.
Transparency and open consultation with affected stakeholders is imperative
in
the development of effective public policy.
RATIONALE
Given that:
Very little is known about the consequences of including trade in education
services in the GATS
such as on the quality, access, and equity of higher education, on
domestic authority to regulate higher education systems, and on public subsidies for
higher education. The potential risks of including higher education in the GATS, as
indicated above, could be very significant.
While there are currently some barriers to trade in education services, there does
not appear to be a major problem overall
.
Institutions continue to be able to actively
develop exchange agreements, distance education programs, research collaborations,
offshore partnerships etc. to meet their internationalization objectives and contribute to
international development. Moreover, many of these barriers appear to be related to the
lack of recognition of academic qualifications or concerns over the quality of
educational providers;
it is therefore unlikely that they will lend themselves to trade
policy remedies through the GATS process. Conversely, there are existing
mechanisms, such as the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning
Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon Convention), open to all states,
which are dealing with these issues. There are also national information centres to
foster recognition of credentials and vigorous discussions on ways to improve bilateral
or multilateral recognition of each other’s domestic quality assurance mechanisms.
It is extremely difficult to clearly define which education services are supplied
strictly on a commercial basis
due to
the public-private mix in all systems and within
many institutions of higher education.
GATS Article I:3
is recognized as being ambiguous and open to interpretation.
3
While we applaud senior officials in our respective governments for insisting that
public service systems are exempted from the agreement based on Article I:3, we do
not understand how this conclusion has been reached given the absence of clear,
broadly accepted definitions and, more importantly, the fact that the component parts of
the system are so inextricably linked. In addition, history shows that exemptions to
international agreements such as the GATS tend to be interpreted narrowly by trade
dispute tribunals. For these reasons, it seems unrealistic to assume that public education
at the tertiary level is exempted from the GATS based on Article I:3.
Many of our respective countries have not undertaken an effective consultation
process
between trade officials and the organizations representing public and private
higher education institutions.
DECLARATION
Operating under these principles, and given these circumstances, the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada, the American Council on Education, the
European University Association, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
jointly declare that:
Our member institutions are committed to reducing obstacles to
international trade in higher education using conventions and agreements
outside of a trade policy regime. This commitment includes, but is not
limited to improving communications, expanding information exchanges,
and developing agreements concerning higher education institutions,
programs, degrees or qualifications and quality review practices.
Our respective countries should not make commitments in Higher
Education Services or in the related categories of Adult Education and
Other Education Services in the context of the GATS. Where such
commitments have already been made in 1995, no further ones should
be forthcoming.
AUCC, ACE, EUA , and CHEA convey this joint declaration to the Government of
Canada, the office of the United States Trade Representative, the European
Commission, individual European states that are members of the nascent European
Higher Education Area, and all interested Member States of the WTO for their
attention.
DATE: 28 September, 2001
ROBERT J. GIROUX, PRESIDENT, AUCC
DAVID WARD, PRESIDENT, ACE
ERIC FROMENT , PRESIDENT, EUA
JUDITH EATON, PRESIDENT, CHEA
Footnotes:
1
Taken from UNESCO
=
s 1998
World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and
Action
2
The term “competent bodies” is used in order to take into account the fact that in any given nation, authority for
higher education rests with different levels of government, institutions, and organizations.
3
Article I:3 is the agreements exemption of services "supplied in the exercise of government authority"
, where these services are defined as being supplied "neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers".
4
It should be noted, however, that in the case of Canada, there is ongoing dialogue between the federal government and the education sector with respect to the GATS.
Source: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/higher-education/GATS_en.pdf
See also:
http://www.eua.be/activities-services/news/newsitem/15-02-05/EUA_Council_statement_on_TTIP_and_TISA.aspx
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Shes been paid milliions of dollars for basically doing nothing (ie giving speeches) by a group of wall street entities.
This means she has a huge debt to those who paid her, before setting a foot in the WH. This will call into question everything she does there.
I have many problems with her specific policies(and agree with others) and foreign policy, but the above overrides all.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)That's an insinuation without any evidence. Senator Sanders was asked to cite any examples, and he couldn't think of a single one.
She was paid for her appearance. There's big money for public figures and celebrities to make appearances in various venues.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)But we have to be extremely cautious when they then go and take a up positions of power over those that gave them the money.
Hillary collecting ridiculous amounts of money (100s of Millions of dollars) for non-real work ("speech fees" from the Wall Street banks and firms whom she, as POTUS, will be writing regulatory laws, and making prosecutorial decisions over is an extreme example of money in politics, which is one of Bernie's top issues.
Think this is harmless? Just imagine if Dick Cheney collected millions of dollars in salary and stock options from Defense and Oil companies, started a war and just-so-happened to award these very companies huge contracts for armaments (to destroy countries) and infrastructure(to rebuild countries)
Oh wait, He Did!!!!
Sure Cheney's work is on a different scale, but I'm not about to sit by silently and allow Hillary to aspire to this, and god knows maybe even beyond.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)for this country for free for almost 20 years as FL of AR and as FLOTUS. Were you equally concerned about her earnings, or lack thereof then?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)If Hillary wins, I hope she does work to institute Bernie's ideas. We'll see.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)You are free to correct me if I get anything wrong.
As far as "I was there first," I do not see evidence of that. Her policy proposals -- very detailed and thorough -- came out early on. In any case, I'm not sure why it would matter.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Why rely on "this time it will be different" as a gauge?
Kinda like letting Al Capone off if he had sworn not to do it again.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)We can argue that til the end of time.
Whatever you think of it, it was one vote in a long career. It doesn't support the idea that she is through and through a "neocon" or "neoliberal" or "dino" or corrupt evil horror of a human being.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)National security
Weather vane
Trade
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Say goodbye to minimum wage increases by State and Local governments. All a corporation will do is declare that a raise in minimum wages will adversely effect their profits. How many State and Local governments can afford such a fight by corporations using the TPP ISDS dispute resolution process designed by and for multi-national corporations? You will now have corporations able to use this dispute resolution process to sue all levels and forms of governments. They can also just threaten to use said process which will "discourage" defenders due to the legal cost etc..Does this sound like giving up governmental sovereignty for corporate profits? Follow the money.....
Also, will Clinton appoint anyone but corporatist judges who may or may not have a social justice heart? Think about the probabilities given where she comes from.......
Also, she is "currently" against TPP. However the US Chamber of Commerce has put out a message to it's membership that after the election, they are sure she will find reasons to be "currently" in favor of TPP.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/02/chamber-of-commerce-chief-tom-donohue.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-
Meteor Man
(385 posts)I defies credulity that Hillary supporters try to deny Hillary is an economic Third Way Dem and Neoconservative Warhawk.
Wall Street owns Hillary and The Chamber of Commerce knows it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Positive Hope and Real Change
Honesty about the corrupt political system and its effect on government
Significant Reform
A call for a truly Moral Economy
Proud Liberal Agenda
Fighting for working people (not tepid support but fighting for their interests)
Challenging and breaking up Monopolies. Preventing Monopolies.
I could go on but you get the idea
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Voting for the 2005 anti people bankruptcy bill.
Partering with Israel First billionaires to fund her campaign.
Supporting Fracking.
Supporting anti worker trade laws.
Next question.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)spin spin spin.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Loudestlib
(980 posts)What is she campaigning on? If someone asks me what Sanders is campaigning on, I can say "economic justice," "single payer healthcare," and "no-cost in-state college tuition."
Why does she want to be president?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
I think "what she's campaigning on" has been clear throughout her campaign, if you can listen without rightwing smears echoing in your ears.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Similarly, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)She's for fracking
She's for privatized prisons
She's against marijuana legalization
She's one of the responsible parties for the Iraq War with her ill conceived vote
She's against the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall (famous post-Great Depression legislation)
She's very pro-military, apparently wanting to be a "Golda Meir" president (from several sources)
She has stated a willingness to compromise on Social Security and on late-term abortions (which are often the most medically necessary "life of the mother" abortions)
She is FOR keeping the death penalty.
She doesn't have a big picture and her driving principle as a candidate is her "experience," which is not that overwhelming.
She accomplished next to nothing as a senator.
She caused problems for Obama as Secretary of State, and had no great achievements, while John Kerry has excelled.
I don't blame Hillary for Benghazi, but overall, Libya has been her baby and now it's ISIS Land.
Hillary is known as a harsh infighter who jettisons friends who dare oppose her. Ask Bill Richardson. Ask the old members of the White House Travel Office, who were eventually reinstated against her will.
She sat on the board of directors of Walmart for years. That's enough to disqualify her right there!
What has she ever really "got done?" I can't think of anything.
She lied the first time I ever heard her speak. It was on 60 Minutes in early 1992 just after the 12-year affair with Genifer Flowers exploded in the media. "I'm not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette," Hillary famously told Steve Kroft. If fact, she was doing just that, and she knew she was. She lied because she had to, in order for Bill's campaign to continue, but she lied.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and was sorry to see him leave office. Hillary has never been a fave. I thought Hillarycare was a convoluted mess with too many moving parts to work. She developed the plan in secret - just like Cheney did with the oil companies and energy policy.
As a woman, I'm embarrassed at how often and brazenly she and her surrogates play the "woman" card. It's inappropriate in these modern times.
She's shrouding her highly-paid speeches to Goldman-Sachs in secrecy, and refuses to release transcripts, which we know exist. This country has had enough of Wall Street Treasury Secretaries.
Of course I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, because she's worlds better than anything the Republicans will offer. But she's not nearly the democrat that Bernie is. Bernie is a real new-dealer. He'll get the country moving again. Hillary is status quo, laissez faire, and a Third-Wayer and that is a Democrat with an asterisk. The asterisk says * Believes that Democrats should move to the right to capture votes from the center.
Bernie is actually the only classic Democrat in the race.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)One which could get us into war with Russia DIRECTLY.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and history of the first Clinton administration and her constant wavering and changing her mind on issues plus the political debts she has incurred due to her money-raising, I do not trust her.
I am retired and on Social Security. I do not trust Hillary to protect my Social Security benefits. That is what I live on. I worked for my Social Security. I seriously doubt that with all her money, Hillary cares much about middle-class people like me who rely on Social Security for retirement. I do not trust her at all about Social Security.
If Bernie does not win the election, I suspect that no other candidate will protect Social Security.
In addition, she is not willing to try to get single-payer, universal or even all non-profit healthcare funding and insurance. She is not even talking about a public option or Medicare for all.
Her plan for funding free tuition at state schools of higher education is not as good as Bernie's and not as clearly funded. I think her ideas on that are just a lot of hot air. The plan should not single out poor students for help. It should not be needs-based at all. Donald Trump should pay the tax on his Wall Street trades and his children should be entitled to enter the program just like everyone else. A higher education is not a luxury. It is something we acquire in order to be useful in society. Bernie knows what it means for our children to have college debts. It's a terrible burden. Bernie has a plan to fairly pay for tuition for all who work at school at state colleges and universities. It think it is a good and feasible plan and should be adopted.
Hillary claims now (probably to get elected) that she wants to change the TPP, but I am opposed to the arbitration courts that the trade agreements including the WTO impose because they grant a higher authority to their courts than to our American courts. That cannot be. Trade courts should not be empowered to overrule or penalize decisions by our democratic institutions -- not at any level of our democracy. Democracy first. If another country does not want to respect the laws that we pass democratically, then we should not trade with that country as far as free trade is concerned. I am stating that awkwardly, but if I should explain more, please ask me. So far our trade agreements have meant the loss of our industrial base and the jobs in that area. Textiles are not made nearly as much, if at all, in the US as they used to be. And that is true in many areas.
She wants employers to pay for family leave. I prefer Sanders' plan to raise the payroll tax just a tiny bit to make sure every new parent gets paid family leave and small employers are not burdened with all the cost.
I do not trust her at all on net neutrality. She has received too much money from the media. Bernie, on the other hand, limits how much money he will accept from sources that are not working people. Unions support Bernie (some of them), but few business interests are paying his way. We need campaign finance reform, and Hillary's failure to lead by example on this is worrisome.
She is too prone to war for me. She is not farsighted and patient when it comes to foreign affairs. Her vote for the Iraq War Resolution was careless, thoughtless. I question whether she even read all the classified materials that Bernie read and that persuaded Bernie not to vote for it. Bernie has "less experience" in foreign affairs, but that is a plus for me. He will be able to establish new priorities and new relationships with other countries. I think that is great. People in other countries are very enthusiastic about the possibility of Bernie in the White House. Not so much enthusiasm about Hillary outside of Israel. Hillary made a mess even worse when it comes to the Middle East. Bernie's fairness will help that situation.
Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall and Commodities Futures Act were horrible. Yet one of her advisors, Gentler was among the authors as I understand it of the Commodities Futures Act.
I do not think that Hillary will appoint the kinds of people that I want to see in the next government.
Bernie has William K. Black and Galbraith among his economic advisors. I like them. William K. Black knows how to prosecute bankers and break up banks. I think that the threat of doing that, the believable threat, just may help us. Hillary evades questions about the banks and has received enormous sums from them. A bad combination.
Hillary has tried to persuade other countries to allow fracking. She supported the Keystone pipeline at one time -- another bit of evidence of her terrible judgment and lack of foresight.
On environmental issues which are very important to me, I think that Bernie Sanders will move us in a much better direction.
Bernie is also very strong on preventive health medicine, something I believe in strongly. I think that he will use the presidential bully pulpit as JFK did to urge people to choose healthy lifestyles. That is not a matter of coercion but of example and persuasion, and he is good at both. Hillary is not bad in this area, but Bernie is more forceful and will do better.
At a rally at the Sports Center at the USC campus in Los Angeles last summer, Bernie stated that one of the things he will do is audit the military budget. That needs to be done. We have military programs that are useless and we may need to invest more money in some that have been neglected. Bernie has served on the Banking Committee in the House and on the Budget and Veterans' Committees in the Senate. He has the inside, detailed knowledge of the financial aspects of government that neither Hillary nor for that matter, any other recent president, has had. That will be a valuable resource in our government.
I have seen Hillary's speech on the economy. She still adheres to the philosophy that growing the economy will lift all boats. That has not worked. We need tax reform that insures that the middle class and poor do not increasingly get the small edge of the wedge of our growing economy. Bernie acknowledges and strongly objects to the growing disparity in wealth.
Hillary's plans on this will not work. She is very, very weak when it comes to dealing with the disparity in wealth. The middle class is drowning in debt. Hillary's idea was a $12 minimum wage. She tried to weasel away from that at the last debate. We need a $15 minimum wage. If you think about how the economy has grown and don''t just focus on prices, then it is clear that a $15 minimum wage is fair and not at all too high. Hillary's plan for a lower minimum wage in some areas of the country with a higher minimum wage in others will exacerbate the disparity in wealth. No to Hillary on that issue. This is another issue on which she demonstrates quite frankly a lack of understanding that is shocking. Bernie is simply more intelligent than she is and has greater depth of understanding. It will be a terrible step in the wrong direction if Democrats miss the opportunity to nominate and elect a man of Bernie's brilliance.
I suggest that everyone Bernie's book, Outsider in the White House. In my favorite part of the book, Bernie discusses Bill Clinton's administration's pay-offs for lay-offs program. Fascinating read. Very useful.
Feel the Bern!
Hillary is nowhere near the candidate that Bernie is.
I'm for Bernie 100%.
No other candidate measures up once you understand Bernie and realize how his life has been dedicated to justice and fairness and how well he can govern. He was mayor of a town, an excellent introduction to the tasks of an executive. He has far more experience in government in the day-to-day reality of governing than Hillary.
86% of Vermont Democrats voted for him in this primary. You can't get a more valuable, informed endorsement than that.
Go Bernie. Feel the Bern!
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)This post seems a bit like the mock trials that corporations do when they are about to be sued by a victim like a minority or such they are afraid they will be vilified for fighting, so they hire a firm to present a mock jury with several variations of arguments to see which works best to win or if they have to settle out of court.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)there is no marketing to us Bernie supporters. We are very well informed and very pro-Bernie. No one else will do. It's Bernie or nobody.
I'm a lifelong Democrat and I'm taking my country back. Thank you Bernie for running.
I'm in California. We are starting to campaign. Just wait and see.
Hillary's got nothing. Nothing. Except a horrible history of eight years under Clinton that set the stage for 2008 and a lot of tragedy.
All we have to do is say NAFTA and Hillary is unelectable.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Actually suggests talking about issues and policies, for a change?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Not going well, either.
A certain touchiness has set in, IMO.
If Hillary was at all palatable to most Democrats, the primaries would be over by now. She started with a huge advantage, and lost it. That says it all, to me - and the millennials, it seems, are not sucked into the traditional kabuki theater of politics. They look at things as they are, and how they and the world are affected. Not good. Need change. Not more old Clinton stuff. So they will proceed accordingly.
peace13
(11,076 posts)I have asked what makes People support Clinton at least five times and have never gotton one response. Lucky you!
basselope
(2,565 posts)What her "policy positions" are don't really matter, because her past behavior is of someone who doesn't stand by her policy.
But, to name a few.
She is not 100% pro choice.
She is okay with Fracking. Sorry, but you can't be a little bit pregnant.
She is not for a single payer health care system. (It's the ONLY solution that really gets us where we need to go.. everything else leaves too much power in the private sector to set prices).
Libya (I don't need to go back 20 years to show a lack of foreign policy experience).
For free trade agreements.
As for her current platform. She has no real plan.. just platitudes and very meager goals, which based on past behavior she will cede to the GOP.
Let's look at her "issues"
"Alzheimer's disease
We can prevent, effectively treat, and make an Alzheimer’s cure possible by 2025. "
Yeah, this is already happening and they have all but cured it in lab animals. Not sure how this is her "issue".
"Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected. "
She claims she will end Citizens United. She can't. No president can. But, she misses the crux of the problem. It isn't citizens United. You need to go back to 1976 when the Supreme Court found that Money = Speech. As long as you allow THAT to stand, you will NEVER get money out of politics. You can't.
I could go on and on with each one of these.. but this may be my favorite, b/c she misted the *.
"Voting rights
We should be making it easier to vote, not harder. " *
* Does not apply in primaries and places where people might vote against me.
There, fixed it for her.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Rig much?
Not legislation that passed 20 years ago? Not the IWR? Why on earth not?
onecaliberal
(32,931 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Already answered.
onecaliberal
(32,931 posts)She flips on everything, it's hilarious that people like you believe anything that comes out of her mouth. She will change positions for the right price or political expediency. Her history is proof.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)See above.
There are very few issues where Sanders and Clinton disagree, and none where they're in complete opposition. It's about how to reach specific goals, and what the federal government can/should do.
I see nothing that makes her a right-winger. Lots of innuendo, but nothing in her policy proposals.
Thanks for those who took the question seriously and answered.
peace13
(11,076 posts)Thanks for the waste of time!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Sanders voted against the horrible PATRIOT act twice. Clinton did both times. I don't consider anyone who voted for the Patriot act a liberal or a progressive on issues of privacy, free speech, and free association.
I mean, for god's sake, the PATRIOT act allowed the government to determine which books I was reading in the library. FFS!
Clinton also support(ed) a flag burning amendment to make it criminal. Sanders never did.
Nobody has mentioned that. Definite proof of being a right-winger.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I don't know how old you are but the dems thanks to the DLC are now in a position where Republicans used to be. We want our party back to its liberal ideas and me, I want progressive ideas which is Bernie. Perhaps you haven't run into the Republican platform in the fifties which is further left than the democratic platform of the nineties and now without Bernie.
So, yes, HRC is republican just as the party has taken over the republican spectrum compromising to rip the safety net.
But you won't see it because you are loyal and blinded. I've voted republican, democratic and even green. I am able to be flexible, follow issues, inform myself, and change as our country's needs change. Clinton is at the very least centrist and not liberal and certainly no progressive. Her Goldwater Girl training still influences her choices. I'm personally tired of war. I want someone who thinks out of the box, has institutional memory (just as I do) and wants our democracy back from the Koch Brothers.
If you think that is Hillary, you haven't read about her very much. Start with the Sunlight Foundation
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Well, certainly the rightwing is WAYYY to the right of where Republicans used to be.
Even now, in some states we have Democrats in conservative states who would be Republicans in other states, and we've seen a few Republicans in liberal states who'd be Democrats in conservative areas.
But as a timeline, we never had a Democratic party that embraced a platform as liberal as Clinton is has. That's fiction.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html#ooid=N1ODF1dzpHyB52_cmPb77qDHRLMY2We_
CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.
CHUCK TODD: What are they?
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.
I remember in '96, Chuck, my husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions. And he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that. And that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional actions.
https://www.nbcumv.com/news/hillary-clinton-tells-chuck-todd-her-organizing-principle-%E2%80%9Cdefend-our-security-our-interests
The Democratic Party DOES NOT COMPROMISE ON ABORTION.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Geez Louise, how many times does it have to be repeated?
She's not proposing any additional restrictions - on the contrary.
Planned Parenthood endorsed her, btw.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)That does not exist. It shouldn't exist. And she's doing it to pander.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)of her saying it! SHE BRINGS IT UP - Chuck Todd says "reasonable restrictions" and she says
And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that.
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS - 
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)not to constrict what exists.
But if you know something PP doesn't, be sure to let them know!
We Endorse Clinton
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.
More: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)CHUCK TODD: Are there reasonable restrictions that you would ever support on abortion?
HILLARY CLINTON: I've said that there were.
CHUCK TODD: What are they?
HILLARY CLINTON: And that's under Roe v. Wade, that there can be restrictions in the very end of, you know, the third trimester. But they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.
I remember in '96, Chuck, my husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions. And he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. You know, women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem, women whose life is threatened themselves if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
And so, you know, again, I am where I have been, which is that, you know, if there is a way to structure some kind of constitutional restrictions that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that. And that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional actions.
That is HER bringing up a "constitutional action" for "reasonable restrictions" on ABORTION when the interviewer didn't even go there, and it is Red Flag because either a) she sincerely believes it or b) she's just saying it to get some of those sweet Pro-Life Republican votes. I prefer Bernie's "let's go after the states that are trying to restrict a woman's right to choose" as opposed to "let's compromise and do some constitutional action" --
I understand Planned Parenthood supporting her because they think she'll be the nominee and she's better than anything the Republicans have to offer, but she isn't good enough for me and this is one of the biggest. Want to go three rounds on "should New York recognize gay marriages?" Isn't it lovely how she has "evolved" and now supports it?
Does she even understand what a leader is supposed to do?
You asked a question. You want me to believe your interpretation of her position as opposed to her very clear explanation of it.
No Compromise on Abortion - it's a line in the sand, and she crossed it.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)The question was BASED on a hypothetical amendment.
For cryin' out loud! She is not proposing restrictions except to the idea of "abortion on demand through all 9 months" which is a rightwing red herring.
PLEASE. See the context. It was about unrestricted abortion, period, which is not Roe v. Wade and is not in the cards.
Also, read PP's endorsement of her.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)I would even support constitutional action on REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.
The problem we are having is she didn't say NO, and then SHE brought up her willingness to negotiate with Republicans about messing with the Constitution.
When asked a "yes or no" question, she PANDERED. She counts on Planned Parenthood cover for we pro-choice people, and the "Chuck Todd" viewer to understand her "I'm flexible - we can negotiate, as long as life of the mother is taken into consideration."
It means I can't trust her because she might not be pandering to the right - she might be pandering to Planned Parenthood and I am not willing to take a chance on it.
Again, you asked. And I also ask again, LGBT - you've probably already seen the video: "Should New York recognize gay marriages?" NO! She certainly knew how to be definitive then. And as someone who has been saying "yes" to that for a very long time, her "jump on the bandwagon" style infuriates me.
You may trust her. I don't. Do you understand my logic, even if you don't agree with it?
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)ever seen in a country that doesn't want to feed, house and care for living children. Doesn't want to educate them, provide them with health care, provide disturbed children with mental health services, prevent incarceration in juvenile detention facilities, prevent child deaths due to gun violence. People say they are opposed to abortion but 60 million registered voters voted for a party that doesn't give a shit about children. We really need to stop pretending we care about human life. We don't. I am prochoice because other women's bodies do not belong to me and I shouldn't have any say in what they do with their bodies.
This should NOT be a political issue for anyone. If you get pregnant and don't want to have an abortion. Don't have one. That's simple. really it's that simple.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)"Rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. "
(Note, that sceduleII is the same as morphine, percocet, etc and can result in long prison sentences even for possesion)
No. That is not fucking legalization. Legalization means UNSCHEDULED, like alcohol. I know this will never happen becuase it would limit profit potentual of $Hillary's friends in big pharma.
This is another example of money influencing policy, and it pisses me off to no end. Another reason that we CANNOT elect another corporate stooge like $Hillary.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)This change would be monumental.
If you think we can go to full legalization on the federal level in a heartbeat, I have a bridge...
"Corporate stooge like $Hillary" is not proven by this, or anything else I've seen on this thread.
All I see are biases based on rightwing attacks.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Sorry, but making it scheduleII does nothing but *help* big pharma (it can now be considered medicine) while keeping it every bit as illegal and punishable by prison sentence as it was, which I'm sure the prison lobby JUST LOVES. Darth Cheny would be proud.
Yes, Hillary is a corporate stooge, on this issue, and many others
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)NOWHERE.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)So ill just keep pushing for real legalization, of MJ and others ( I dont believe any drug should be illegal to use)
Fuck the pharma and the prison lobbies, and anyone who wants to keep filling our prisons using drug laws.
senz
(11,945 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Sivart
(325 posts)is that Hillary's supporters are the first ones to dismiss a report or a link BASED ON THE AUTHOR'S PAST ACTIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS......
But they just cannot understand why anyone would look to the Clinton legacy - his, hers, and theirs - to help form an opinion about Hillary.
dchill
(38,562 posts)That's impossible.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Democracy is further defined as (a
"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
Lucinda
(31,170 posts) morningfog
(18,115 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)1. Opposing Universal Healthcare
2. Opposing Reinstating Glass Steagall
3. Being a member of the DLC
4. Opposing tuition and debt free college
5. Not backing Marriage Equality until it didn't matter
6. Being willing to "compromise" with right wingers on women's reproductive rights
7. Supporting Nuclear Power
8. Supporting fracking
9. Supporting Terrible Trade Deals
10. Supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The list is endless. She may be a Democrat, but she is no Progressive and she isn't what I would call Liberal either.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)1. Not true - see above.
2. Not true
3. Not true
4. Not true- see above.
5. Not true
6. Not true - see above.
7. Okay, if you ignore her clean energy plan
8. Okay, if "supporting" = wanting it gone, but not at the expense of more dangerous fuels, and only under stringent circumstances
9. Not true, although "terrible trade deals" is kind of an easy catch-all. Not that black/white.
10. She doesn't.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Her Social Security proposal puts everyone's benefits on the chopping block
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)These are not part of her agenda.
Thanks.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)But now I see you in full ....
I've been a Democrat all my voting life (since 1974) ... I will never vote for Clinton
The Iraq War 'Judgement' still matters, as does other choices she made in the last decades ....
I don't get a free ride for bad behavior ... neither do the Clintons ...
Bye ...
Sparkly
(24,162 posts) Squinch
(51,053 posts)if they voted for Kerry, they NEVER answer.
I wonder why? Gosh. It's a mystery!
Squinch
(51,053 posts)egalitegirl
(362 posts)She is a warmonger and a supporter of welfare for Wall Street using money taken from ordinary folks.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)egalitegirl
(362 posts)There is no need to narrowly look at propaganda pamphlets created for winning votes. Her record is before us. She voted for Wall Street bailout, took the country into war against Libya and Syria, voted for the Iraq war, and gets support from warmongers like Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Your view of her record is selective and simplistic.
The truth is you've decided her platform amounts to "propaganda pamphlets," so your answer is that there's nothing in her policy positions that makes her anything but a liberal Democrat.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Some of us look at issues like wars, Wall Street bailout, racism and misogyny. Hillary Clinton fails on all these fronts. Remember Bill Clinton's racist comment that Obama would have been bringing him coffee? Remember how Bill Clinton abused his power and used it over a helpless intern? Hillary has not criticized these actions.
She also supports wars and Wall Street welfare. She is also not an intelligent person. She only got to where she is because her husband was the POTUS.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)"Your view of her record is selective and simplistic."
I would have to say that statement applies to you as well.
"The truth is you've decided" that her platform is based on "profound truths," so your answer is that those of us who present reasons why we don't support Hi11ary are anything but liberal Democrats.
All in it together
(275 posts)Why not?
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)new policy this past month or so
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)And no I cannot say the specific number of a bill or anything but this is why I did not support Hillary in the primary: 1 She supported the war in Iraq and doesn't seem to oppose any war anywhere or anytime. 2 She does not support public financing of elections and does not seem to support campaign finance reform in any serious way. 3 She supported NAFTA, most favored nation status with China and I don't buy her flip flop on TPP. She's going to flip flop back to supporting that piece of crap as soon as she doesn't need gullible people's votes. She seems completely untroubled by people losing their jobs to sweat shop workers overseas or abuse of the H1B visa program. 4 I'm very troubled by the pay for play allegations with the speaking fees and the Clinton Foundation from banks and foreign governments. I don't want a president that owes a favor to Citigroup of Saudi Arabia and China. 5 I want to see Medicare for all and I don't believe she will push us in that direction. I believe she will pay lip service to that as long as whatever we do will benefit drug and insurance companies. 6 I don't believe she is serious about decriminalizing marijuana and ending mass incarceration of non dangerous citizens.
A few asides: I don't support $15/hr and don't know if free college for everyone is a good idea. I support common sense gun regulation but think she might go too far.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I didn't ask for that. (She's been out of the Senate for a while now.)
I'm asking about current stated policy positions as spelled out, not subjective "beliefs" or "feelings" or suspicions or guesses without basis (which are rampant here). I havent seen anything in her platform that supports the notion that she's a terrible "neo" anything.
I read your last paragraph of asides -- see where she stands on the issues you mentioned. You might be surprised.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Without the (rightwing) character assassination, there's nothing there to suggest she's anything but a liberal Democrat.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Objectivity and stated positions don't correlate. And on the other side of the coin, there's plenty of objective, multiply-sourced evidence that disproves your theory. When one sets out to deceive, and also when one changes one's positions as often as the wind changes direction, their stated policy goals are meaningless.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
You want to say "you can't talk about {this} or {this} or {this}" but that's the crux of the argument against liberal or Democratic Hillary.
All those things she did 20 years ago, or 8 years ago or the IWR. She was laying out liberal policy proposals and platforms then too...that she abandoned to do those RW things you want to exclude. "Getting things done" has long been Hillary code-speak for "willing to adopt RW positions in order to get a resolution she can call a win" and it's been long exposed. The story of Hillary is "Quacks like a progressive duck, tramples over progressive ideals like a GOP elephant and calls that progress."
It's not credible anymore. She's not credible anymore. As my Uncle Bob (a staunch mainstream RW Republican) said last Sunday at family dinner: "Really, I'm voting for Hillary. she's the best Republican still in this race." He changed his voter registration explicitly so he could vote for her in the CT primaries because as a life-long Republican that supported Nixon, then Reagan, then Reagan, then Bush, then Dole, then Bush, then Bush, then McCain, then Romney...Hillary is the candidate out of all the remainers that best matches his political ideals. If you don't see that as problematic in terms of you really don't want to be on the same side of the fence as Bob, I don't know what to tell you...he's literally supporting her because she's the (edit: best) ideological heir of Ronald Reagan. (edit: still in this race.)
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I know it would be convenient for Hillary if we would all forget everything about her history and just look at what she is saying right now. But that's the problem, she changes her position depending on who she's talking to. No one can trust anything she says.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)The audacity to spend the least amount of money in the primary, and have the audacity to win the most delegates and popular votes of ANYONE else democrat or republican. Spending the least amount of money!
Audacity! She has the audacity to be winning! Grrrr
Squinch
(51,053 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)She has the audacity to campaign in small venues that cost a fraction of the amount of stadium and park rallies where people can actually get to know her! At a fraction of the cost! And she can't overstate the audience count! She actually WORKS with people to get to know them! And in churches! And the people LIKE Her! And they VOTE FOR HER! AAAAAAAHHH! the AUDACITY!
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)That's the whole problem. She just goes with what she thinks will get votes, and sticks with it till it doesn't work. In reality, she is the Donald Trump of the Democratic Party because we truly don't know what she really stands for, besides the only consistent factors: Where she gets her money, what her husband did, and what she advocated for as Senator and Secretary of State. If you are asking what basis are her attacks from, then I just answered your question.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Promised to compromise on abortion law.
Deal broken.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Late term abortions are already ruled illegal by the courts, except for the same reasons HRC said would have to be there before she would entertain dialogue.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Incest, rape and life of the mother all take precedent.
I'm NOT going to tell you why I give a shit about this matter, because I don't think I could have one if I wanted one. Which I do not.
She's creeping toward Republican "family values".
Her supporters are pissed that anyone challenged her in the election. Bad news is on the way, though, so please don't get pissed at people that realized the depth of her corruption - blame it on Hillary Clinton.
I didn't make this shit up.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)because she said it recently.
I have a severe trust deficit with Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, and I dare you to insinuate that I am a Republican because I have zero faith in her.
She's a severely flawed candidate. You probably know it, too.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)What I see being prepared for BS is going to hit like nukes.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You can't stop it.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)<iframe width="640" height="360" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Meteor Man
(385 posts)The policy differences are crystal clear.
War
Fracking and the environment
TPP
Trillion dollar nuclear. modernization
How many vital issues do I have to have for suporting Bernie?
MFM008
(19,823 posts)They cant look beyond the facts. Just like the facts that show the way is shutting on his run.
On the War she was LIED to by of all people Colin Powell.
She holds almost all the same positions as Obama.
I don't like trade agreements but you never get ALL you want.
Maybe she hasn't had the same positions since she was 3 but my first vote was for Reagan.
First and last.(vote for gop)
Sanders is not the perfect candidate either.
I bet all those tax returns going back 20 years are hiding a whole lot of donations to the NRA
or something unpleasant otherwise he would throw them at the press.
Yeah the NRA
Yeah Guns.
Another thing, hes elderly. Hes OLD. Hes cranky and old.
Its a fact.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Go figure.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Case is: her record casts doubts about the policies she says to espouse. I don't trust her to keep her word, even if her word "sounds like it's going in the right direction".
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Is that your position?
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Just because she has polled and focus-grouped to find the right "words" to secure the nomination doesn't impress me much. Not against her RECORD.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Prefer democrats over light republicans. I'm for the estate tax and against nepotism. Maybe I'll write Bernie's name.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)Good to know.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)the first chance she gets isn't one of them.
Here is the key-word for winning my support: UNEQUIVOCAL.
You want my vote? Then I want to be able to trust Clinton.
You want me to trust her? Then she has to become unequivocal in her championing of positions I hold dear.
And that would start with the big trust-winner of them all: "I was wrong".
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to say, clearly, that she was wrong to oppose my marriage rights, and EXPLAIN why she changed her mind. If that is "I changed my mind because the polls changed" I might not like the answer as much as an "epiphanous moment", but at least I would know that she is for once speaking the truth.
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to promote the TPP, and here is why" and explain what she will do to bury that piece of sovereignty-undermining corporation-coddling.
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong to give signs to Wall Street that I was for sale, and take bribe-sized speaking fees from them. From here on, my Wall Street policies will be copied straight from Elizabeth Warren's recommendations. Here are some examples, which I promise to implement IN FULL! And while we ladies are at it, I promise to let Bernie have a field day with Citizens United."
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "Third Way is over. It should certainly not presume to rule the Democratic Party anymore. Which is why I have asked president Obama to dismiss the current useless chair, and appoint someone not in the pay of laon sharks and prison industry to replace her with immediate effect."
For Clinton to win my trust, she has to clearly say: "I was wrong on Iraq, wrong on Syria, wrong on Libya. I took the wrong advice from the wrong kind of so-called friends. I disavow those friends, and from hereon, I will take better advice, specifically from such-and-such."
I could go on, but you get my drift. For Clinton to win my vote, she'd have to start disavowing the things she did wrong. "but we must look forward now and by the way I have ovaries" will not woo me.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)I hope you also know that it isn't about any single person's list of demands. The people who are important now are those who are willing to band together to get her elected.
If you are serious about your, um, list, and you aren't voting for her unless all your demands are met, then you're obviously not voting for her.
That means you are now one of those people who is irrelevant with respect to the general election.
Good to know. Saves some energy for the rest of us.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)You just implied that I am not important, because I won't "band together" on her conditions. FUCK THAT.
And indeed, I won't vote for her if she just takes me for granted while preparing to screw me. I will do all I can to make sure that Bernie gets the nomination, so I am not screwed again by some semi-homophobic WallStreet coddling and double-speaking Clinton. Failing that, my vote is apprently not wanted. Might as well write in then.
Squinch
(51,053 posts)You have pretty much said you won't vote for the candidate who won the primary.
Therefore you are irrelevant to the next phase.
It has nothing to do with your emotions or mine. It's just how things work in the real world.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)As you just did. The sense of entitlement and privilege is emanating from Clinton's every supporter.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)pamphleteering campaign, that's like asking what, in this paid advertisement for Ginsu knives, would make you NOT want to buy Ginsu knives.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
B Calm
(28,762 posts)war policy...
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)If you've managed to make it this far into the primaries and somehow remain blind to all of the policy discussion that's taken place right here on DU then I don't think there's a lot left to be said, you've already got your mind made up.
I used to read a candidates platform and believe they meant every word of it too, now I look at the context of their past, their speeches, and their voting record. It's a lot more work, but it's worth it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.
Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Snip.
Cont: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Apparently only some children.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)She says one thing and does the other .. and that's what her political history has been and what we have to go by. So for some us who will go out and vote for her, we'll be crossing our fingers that she does the right thing in terms of progressive stands on the issues. I for one am cautious and skeptical.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)thet
1.) attempted and arguably has been successful in attacking public services of all kinds throughout the world making affordable health care impossible for us and tying US state ideology to this really bad set of corporate goals that attempt to lock down the future world into really bad models
2.) Lied about it more and more audaciously and eventually drew almost the entire US political and media establishment into various schemes to cover up this growing body of lies.
3.) Continue to use more additional trade deals that use the same bad models to expand the scope of this global takeover making public education FTA illegal in countries that want to trade with the US and making the US into a global army of corporate domination - completely against the nations will and without virtually any of our knowledge. One can verify this easily by looking at the paper in my .sig and then googling key phrases from it. Another eye opener is to google the name of that trade deal or other trade deals in the context of various countries like india, for example and education. one will quickly find out that that deal is among the worst things in the world right now -
4.) that same deal, and a newer spinoff from it now almost finished in geneva- which you can read about in a document from the CTPC, hopes to irreversibly lower skilled wages by pitting workers in developing countries against those in developed countries in competition for the same jobs-first privatizing large chunks of the public sector with only the most narrow exception for “services supplied in exercise of governmental authority” - but that exception causes numerous interpretation difficulties. The approach applied in this exception is criticized for not taking into account to a sufficient extent the nature of the public services. Instead, it refers to the economic circumstances of the supply of the service, and whether it is "supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers" a test which virtually ALL "public services" fail, for example, education and health care in the US. therefore they must be privatized and soon that pipeline likely will feed them into a procurement pipeline which will award those jobs to the lowest international bidders. In essence this system is being set up to trade jobs for trading concessions like "national treatment" or "most favored nation". 20 years and seemingly hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of man hours would not have been invested into these plans - including maybe a dozen huge conferences in cites around the world, to set up a system with the tiny scope it has today, no, this system is being set up to attack all of us.It could turn overnight into a real disaster for the country, also it will put large chunks of the economy under WTO, not US final jurisdiction.
5.) This same 1994 deal has already played a key part in creating a huge financial crisis in 2008 which devastated many families - that also has been covered up- and it could cause far more damage at any time, one of the worst things is this giving away our rights to change domestic regulations to these corporate courts which are there only to fine countries huge amounts of money for making any changes which impact corporate profits, This is what Obama and Elizabeth Warren were really arguing about a few months ago.
Beowulf
(761 posts)Hillary has and will say anything. She has been on both sides of issues that it's easy to find a Hillary quote to support any position. Now that she is campaigning in PA, she's changed her talking points on guns when she's in PA, while saying something different in CT. Every issue is the same with her. That's why most Americans find her untrustworthy and when people don't trust you, it doesn't really matter what you say.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)GATS was signed in 1994 by Bil Clinton and its been the main reason our health care has been frozen into bad policy.
Now they are trying to make it still worse with TiSA and the other two.
There is NO excuse for what we are doing, fighting common sense all the way- for corporations- policy that is killing people all around the globe.
Its bad business.
http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/cassim_steuart_part3.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Threats_to_Health_Care_Policy.pdf
http://www.ciel.org/Publications/PublicServicesScope.pdf
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/gats-and-south-africas-national-health-act
