2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHow do Hillary supporters deal with her hawkish views and her obvious ties to Wall Street???
I mean, I get how most Hillary supporters really, really think she is the safest bet for keeping the White House, mainly because of her huge name recognition and her big war chest. However, on half of the issues of the day, from free trade to banking regulation to issues of war and peace, Hillary has taken either a compromised position or a flat-out Republican one. Sorry, but that's the unvarnished truth.
In the final analysis, I just can't see how all the positions she has taken can be dismissed. Even if the alternative is a relatively risky, unknown candidate from a small state, at least he says all the right things, not to mention with a passion and a persuasiveness that quite honestly comes along only once in a generation.
For those of you who want to make the jump but just aren't sure Bernie can persuade ordinary middle-of-the-road Americans to vote for him, I hope you all watch the debates and see for yourselves that Bernie really does have what it takes to go all the way.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)every issue I think she is the best qualified candidate.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)they ignore whatever makes them uncomfortable.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)you have in your mind.
She doesn't exist. I think you made her up because wrecking Hillary's campaign is a must if your guy is to win. Bernie can't win with Hillary in the primary.
I suggest you read some Hillary biographies and learn who she really is.
artislife
(9,497 posts)read a biography on Hillary Clinton.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Or is it only Bernie supporters who are trying to wreck her campaign, by repeating these opinions?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And a very itchy trigger finger in Syria. Thankfully, saner heads within the administration prevailed.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)so they send millions into the Clinton Foundation...
That takes skills only the Hill can do!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)should not be excused.
Bringing up the Clinton Cash thing is pure desperation
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... to make a decision on whether to support it, despite her job as SOS being to work on it with many of the other countries involved with it.
I'd say that Bernie knows far more about the truth of TPP as our "foreign policy" and why it shouldn't be there than Hillary, despite her experience in it (that she herself says wasn't enough for her to understand it enough to have an opinion on it earlier).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)as F-35 manufacture. I can admit Hillary's vote on AUMF and IWR, can you admit Sanders votes on bombings.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... being subjected to there should be no rocks thrown by any other candidate
99Forever
(14,524 posts)"La la la la la la la, I can't hear you I can't hear you" at the top of their voice.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)fly.
Many are all about making our party the secular and inclusive wing of the Republican party.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hawkish views: Hillary is not going to lead us into another Iraq War. Yes, I know some people think that, but I don't see the slightest bit of evidence for it. As SoS she was slightly more hawkish than Obama, but the stuff we're talking about -- for example the Syria no-fly zone -- is a whole different universe from a major pre-emptive invasion committing huge numbers of ground troops.
Wall Street ties. These are way overblown. As I've pointed out before, when you add up the numbers, 3.4% of her campaign contributions came from financial industry employees in amounts of $200 or more (smaller contributions are not categorized). The other thing about "Wall Street" is that, while financial employees do generally lean conservative, there are also plenty of liberals, including people like George Soros and Tom Steyer, many of whom share all the same concerns about things like inequality, the environment, financial instability, etc.
In the end, I look at her overall progressive record, as well as the specific policies that are part of her platform. Her economic proposals have won praises from liberal economists like Krugman and Stiglitz.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Especially the bogus "Wall Street" ties. Every Democrat takes money from employees of Wall Street firms. Always have.
Speaking to a Wall Street firm doesn't make her in their pocket any more than Sanders speaking at Liberty U makes him a religious nut.
jfern
(5,204 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)But yet you still use it. I pointed this out quite a while ago, you're taking all untracked donations and counting them all as not being from the financial industry, even though you have no way of knowing who they are from. I could do the same thing and say over 60% of her donations are from the financial sector and it would make just as much sense as what you did.
You were called out on this before, why lie?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and anyone who can do arithmetic can verify them (I've noticed that Hillary bashers aren't very good at math). As far as untracked small donations, if you had even bothered to read my post...
So much for that argument. I guess actually reading a post before throwing out false accusations is too much to ask for (I've noticed that Hillary bashers aren't very good at reading).
Of course, this OP was asking Clinton supporters what they thought of her supposed hawkishness and "Wall Street ties." As I pointed out, the Wall Street ties are way overblown. But that's just my opinion. If you're really worried about the corrupting influence of small donations from people who work at banks, I'm sure you have a different opinion.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)You're using fuzzy math and my allegations are not false. I've proved it before and you still keep to the same story. You CANNOT add the uncategorized contributions in with the categorized ones to calculate the number, they're two different data sets. Maybe you're good at arithmetic, but you need to learn a bit more about statistics and honesty.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I clearly pointed out that 3.4% of her contributions came from financial sector employees in amounts over $200. I also pointed out that contributions of under $200 are not categorized. Everything I said is 100% factual.
What you want to do is dishonestly exclude small contributions from the total in order to artificially inflate the number. The fact is, of all the money Hillary raised, only 3.4% came from financial sector employees in amounts over $200. A miniscule fraction. That's what all the "Wall Street ties" nonsense is about.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)And absolutely meaningless. I don't want to inflate her number artificially, that is what you're doing. I just want everyone who sees that number to know that it is not true in the slightest. If anyone doubts me, I'll be happy to show my credentials(I'm a subcontractor for AIR and statistical analysis is a large part of what I do) and my work. Your math is bunk. Full Stop.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)financial employees in amounts of $200 or more.
From opensecrets, over Hillary's career (through 2008):
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I
Securities and investment: $12,774,649
Total Receipts: $376,309,659
It comes to 3.39%.
I also know how to do statistical analysis, but this doesn't require any specialized knowledge, just the ability to divide one number by another.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)And your ignorance is showing...I can't argue against a person who shouts the same thing over and over insisting they are right when all evidence points to the contrary....I'll leave you with this hypothetical and extremely simplified version of the nonsense you're trying to pull(as this example shows the error upfront, and you're relying on no one digging into the actual numbers or fact checking):
I want to know how many of the entire 3 million people in Iowa support Hillary Clinton, so I poll a sample of 10000 Iowans. Of those 10000 I poll, 9000 of them declare their support for Hillary! So using the DanTex school of magical numbers I can boldly claim that 0.3% of Iowans support Hillary.
That is your argument in a nutshell...extrapolation takes the results of the subset and uses it to make inferences on the superset. You just take every number not included in your subset and claim it counts in your favor.
REAL MATH:
Securities and Investments: $12,774,649 (I'll give you this number even though it should include real estate as well)
Total INDIVIDUAL/PAC Contributions:
$376,309,659
- $13,453,821
- $20,903,972
------------------
$341,951,866
(your number inflates this by at 10% by including self financing by Hillary, as well as any loans taken out or interest earned while running the campaign...since we are specifically talking contributions and not sources of funding, these numbers do not belong in your calculation).
So before even reaching my main reason this number is BS, you're already wrong, and the percent would be 3.73%. No specialized knowledge needed, yet you still managed to fuck it up.
But that number is still entirely pulled out of ones ass, and is just as pointless as yours. The real issue is this: Of the 341 million dollars, only $138,954,124 of it have actually been designated with an industry(the donations over $200), leaving:
$341,951,866
-$138,954,124
------------------
$202,997,742
worth of contributions with no industry data. This results in two data sets that cannot be used together in the way you have done. You've taken all contributions with no industry data and dishonestly inferred that none of it came from the financial industry, with no data whatsover to back up:
($12,774,649 / $376,309,659 (false initial number)) * 100 = 3.39% WRONG!
In actuality, unless you want to end up with my Iowa scenario above, the only thing you can do is take the financial industry donations and compare them to the other donations that have industry designations as well, which gives you a closer picture:
($12,774,649 / $202,997,742 (donations which have industry data)) * 100 = 6.3%
Now you could take that number and try to make the assumption that it holds true for all her contributions since it is a large subset of the data, but I wouldn't go that far, since we're talking people in different income brackets many of which probably aren't associated with banks, so the only real conclusions that can be made from this data are:
1) Banksters donated 6.3% of all donations over $200 to her campaign.
2) The ABSOLUTE LOWEST amount the banks could have donated to her total campaign would be 3.73%, and that is only if every untracked donation was unassociated with a bank.
3) The ABSOLUTE HIGHEST amount the banks could have donated to her total campaign would be 63.1%, and this only if every untracted donation was associated with a bank
One final note, I mentioned that real estate should be included with banks, and they really should, especially since too big to fail and the mortgage crisis had to do with banks and sub-prime mortgages(under sectors in the link you provided they actually are listed together), so just to quickly show how drastic the numbers become with that added in, here you go:
Total Sector Donations: $173,573,828
Banking/Real Estate Donations: $34,996,285
Unknown Donatons: $168,378,083
($34,996,285 / $173,573,828 (donations which have sector data)) * 100 = 20.16%
So 20.16% of all donations over $200 comes from the banking/real estate sector.
The ABSOLUTE LOWEST amount the banking/real estate sector could have donated was 10.23%
The ABSOLUTE HIGHEST amount the banking/real estate sector could have donated was 59.37%
There you go, thoroughly and completely debunked. You just keep on dividing one number by another, maybe one day you can do math too. And I'd probably try to dabble in that special knowledge you don't think is required if I were you. Knowing is half the battle.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The claim I made is that contributions from financial employees in amounts greater than $200 accounted for 3.4% of her total donations. This is absolutely true, and easily verified. There's no need to extrapolate, because the numbers are all there.
Obviously if you want to compute some other thing, then you can do it, and you will come up with a different answer. If you only divide her 200-plus financial contributions by her total 200-plus contributions, you get a different number. If you try and guess how many of her under-200 contributions came from bank tellers, you get yet a different number (range of possible numbers, actually). And if you include real estate along with bank employees (for what reason, I have no idea), you get yet another number. While you're at it, might as well include construction workers and teachers, and you get an even bigger number.
Here's the thing. None of those numbers are the ones that I was talking about, nor the ones that I care about. What I said, very clearly, is that contributions from financial employees in amounts over $200 accounted for 3.4% of her total donations.
Why did I say this? Because I was refuting the absurd talking point that she is "owned by Wall Street." Remember, the OP asked Hillary supporters about her supposed ties to Wall Street. Well, I gave my explanation.
Now, I'm sure you believe that she is owned by Wall Street, and you will twist the numbers around in strange ways in order to justify that belief. For example, you might believe that all of the under $200 donations come from "banksters", in some secret coordinated ploy by low-level bank employees making small contributions in order to do the bidding of their bosses. This, of course, is insane, but, hey, enjoy yourself.
As to why I don't care about her supposed "Wall Street ties", I made that clear. 3.4% of her donations came from financial employees in amounts of $200 or more. That number is way too small for any rational person to have any concern about her being "owned" by Wall Street.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Instead of playing around with numbers. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
And then there are her close ties to the likes of Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America, Burson-Marsteller, etc.
And then there's this: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
Sanders has no chance at the nomination, but at least he's forcing Clinton to pretend to be progressive.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)predictably, some of the largest employers in her home state of NY. This tells us nothing about whether she is "owned by Wall Street." A better way to figure out who is contributing to her campaign is to look at the percentages, which, as I've pointed out, makes the whole Wall Street meme look totally ridiculous.
Her "close ties" with those other companies are in fact miniscule. It's all part of the "six degrees of Hillary Clinton" game. A few people who worked for a firm that once represented a certain company bundled a few hundred thousand for her, and suddenly the anti-Hillary interwebs explode.
Like I said, this OP asked Hillary Clinton supporters to discuss her supposed hawkish views and Wall Street ties. I explained that. People who hate Hillary are going to hate her regardless of the facts.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)You severely underestimate the ties she has to Beacon Global Strategies and other seedy corporations/firms. And your home state support argument is laughable. As is the case with Obama, Clinton will be far more beholden to Goldman Sachs than she will be to the public.
As Lawrence Lessig pointed out to Bill Moyers:
I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about.
And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You believe that the 3.4% of her contributions in amounts of $200 from financial sector employees are some kind of sign of corruption. I don't. You believe that since some guy who once represented a certain firm bundled a small amount of money for her, she's somehow beholden to that firm via that tenuous link. I don't.
The facts are the facts, but we interpret them in different ways.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Keep playing with numbers if you want. The fact is Clinton has received a massive sum from Big Banks, Big Pharma, the prison industrial complex, etc. Those entities are who she will be beholden to, first and foremost. The same could be said for Obama. 2nd largest donor in 2008 was Goldman Sachs. Who became Secretary of the Treasury? A Goldman Sachs employee, of course. That's how US politics works. It's not a conspiracy. It's out in the open.
The US political system is incredibly corrupt. Again, "But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing." ~Lessig
Several members of the Beacon Global Stategies leadership team have been long-time advisors to Clinton. Same with Burson-Marsteller. These are not admirable organizations, to put it mildly. Her husband was no better, which is how we ended up with NAFTA, a horrendous crime bill, so-called welfare reform and other tragedies.
And from the Truthout piece I provided a link to:
"2. Economy
Her recent foray into vague populist rhetoric notwithstanding, Clinton has long nurtured close ties to the financial sector. Over the course of her political career, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup have been among her top political donors, in addition to giving heavily to the Clinton Foundation. In October 2013, Clinton received $400,000 to speak at two Goldman Sachs events and delivered what was described as a "reassuring message" to the assembled bankers. In all likelihood, a second Clinton administration would involve the appointment of industry insiders to regulatory posts in the perpetually revolving door between Wall Street and the federal government. It's understandable then that her friends on Wall Street would be quick to shrug off her halfhearted attempt to shore up her left flank as anything but substantive. Nobody who was genuinely concerned with economic inequity would be hobnobbing with some of the same economic institutions whose reckless financial schemes helped engineer the 2008 economic collapse.
Hillary Clinton has a long history of being willing to serve the interests of large corporations. In 1976, while serving as legal counsel for the Rose Law Firm, she represented several Arkansas utilities companies that sued the state after a ballot initiative (sponsored by conservative boogeyman Acorn) passed that decreased utilities rates on Little Rock residents and increased them on businesses. In defending the utilities conglomerates, she argued that the initiative amounted to an unconstitutional seizure of property. The judge ruled in these companies' favor.
3. Environment
As Grist magazine reported, during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton took an active role in promoting hydrofracking worldwide through the Global Shale Gas Initiative. Clinton's State Department, and in some cases she personally, lobbied on behalf of companies like Chevron intent on expanding the practice, particularly in countries like Bulgaria and Romania where there was widespread public skepticism. This lobbying was met with mixed success, as Chevron eventually pulled out of Bulgaria due to a moratorium, while Romania's moratorium was repealed following US lobbying. Since stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton has continued to express support for the practice, which she outlined in a September 2014 speech to the National Clean Energy Summit."
But, yes, Clinton would still be preferable to the Republican nominee. I'm not necessarily opposed to holding one's nose and voting for the lesser evil, but some have made a pretty good case against lesser evil voting. Such as Andrew Levine in this piece: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/27/the-logic-of-lesser-evilism/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Regarding the "massive amounts", like I said, if you add up the numbers, it comes out to 3.4% of her campaign funds that came from employees at banks in donations over $200. Whether that 3.4% makes her "beholden" I guess is a matter of opinion, but the whole idea strikes me as absurd.
As far as that "truthout" article, isn't that the fly-by-night outfit that promised that Karl Rove was going to be indicted? Thanks, but I think I'll get my information from a more credible source. For example, the actual contribution numbers from opensecrets.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I seem to recall some article that appeared on Truthout turned out to be false, therefore I'll ignore the points made in any other Truthout article. Bravo.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)As I pointed out....you used total receipts...total receipts does not equal total donations, so right out of the gate you're making shit up. Not true, and easily verified on the exact link you yourself provided. Numbers are there, yes, but they're not the numbers you claim they are. Again. total receipts != total donations. YOU ARE WRONG.
And I am not computing some other thing....I'm computing the only numbers that are actually comparable from a meaningful statistical standpoint. Open a book. Read, learn, come back when you've read the first chapter of a stats book.
My numbers don't guess AT ALL. Yours do. You guessed that every single donor under 200 was not a banker, and presented your number as fact.
And if you can't guess why I included real estate and banking in the same calculation, you didn't read my post...the link YOU YOURSELF provided has them listed as the same sector...because banks handle most real estate deals and hold most mortgages. If you can't figure that on your own from your own links, then god help you.
My numbers are in no way twisted, my numbers are using the real data to show what can really be extrapolated from it...you can't even get the starting donation number right, let alone the percentage. You are embarrassing yourself completely.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Huh? I don't make any claim whatsoever about donors under 200. In fact, I specifically said that of all her donations (err, receipts), 3.4% of them came from financial employees in amounts over 200.
The only thing I "guessed" about donors under 200 is that I don't care whether they work at banks or not. And this is not really a guess. You see, I'm me, so I don't have to guess about what I care about and what I don't. The OP asked me to explain why the supposed Wall Street ties don't bother me, and I did.
If you want, you can post your own opinion about why they bother you. First, you can explain why you fear the corrupting influence of small donations from bank tellers. Then, you can show how to twist the numbers 15 different ways and find one that makes Hillary look as bad as possible. Like you did in the last post. The thing is, I work with numbers and statistics, so I know quite well that it's possible to twist things around the way you did, so I'm not particularly impressed.
As far as including real estate agents under her "Wall Street" ties, this is possibly more absurd than your mathematical gymnastics. Real estate agents do not work on Wall Street. Sure, there is a link, in that when an agent sells a property, frequently the buyer needs to get a loan from a bank. Of course, the same is true for the auto industry. Maybe we should include that as well? That would pump up the numbers even more. Better yet, let's just assume that everyone with a bank account is "connected" to Wall Street, and get the 3.4% all the way up to 100. Gee, this is fun!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)It would be ludicrous to suppose that no donors with less than 200 in contributions were bankers, but that is the argument you framed. And you did it with faulty numbers to boot.
I don't personally have much of an opinion either way, I just couldn't sit by while you peddled that same nonsense.
A simple look at your previous posts just shows your dishonestly:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251446682
No mention at all of those donations being over $200 in that OP. I busted you in that thread, and you tried to act like your math was infallible then, and you've been busted again using the same tactic.
And to accuse me of mental gymnastics when you yourself just admitted you had even the very first number you based all your faulty assumptions on is just pathetic.
I hope all the bile you're wading through to try and get your candidate elected is worth it.
And I repeat yet again, real estate is tied to banking on the link YOU provided. And with very good reason, if you did any research you'd see that they're hardly representing real estate agents, these lobbying groups are for real estate investors and mortgage lendors(AKA Banks).
If you'd spend one moment of research instead of just throwing as much shit against the wall as you can, you'd know that. Two seconds on wikipedia finds this about the largest real estate lobbyist, "The National Association of Realtors", of whom Hillary Clinton was their top individual recipient in 2006, again based on YOUR link:
The NAR wields substantial power as a lobbying organization. Since 1999, the NAR has spent more than $99,384,108,[23] and spent $22,355,463 in 2011 alone.[24] It has consistently ranked among the largest Political Action Committees in the United States. On the total spending, the largest share46% -- has gone to Republicans, and 30.8% has gone to Democrats. Key political issues for the group revolve around federal de-regulation of the financial services industry.
How many things can one person possibly be wrong about before they need to take a step back and reevaluate why they're contributing to making the world the kind of place we supposedly want to save it from becoming. Please take some time and reconsider what you're doing on here.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I explicitly pointed out that 3.4% counted 200-plus contributions. Go back and read the post. This isn't a matter of math anymore, it's a matter of English. This is what I wrote:
It is truly mind boggling that you would take that sentence and reply like this:
Not sure what else there is to add here. The OP asked about supposed "Wall Street" ties, and I explained how minimal they actually are. If anyone thinks that the unknown number of under 200 contributions from low level bank employees are evidence of some kind of corruption, that person has a different opinion than me.
And your attempt to broaden the definition of "banker" to include real estate agents is truly laughable. I get it, you are determined to see Hillary as corrupt and owned by Wall Street, but the fact of the matter is, real estate agents and bankers are completely different. Sure, some people in real estate are involved with financial derivatives, as are some people who work for car companies, or airlines, or any other industry. But to try and add all real estate employee contributions to all bank employee contributions just to bump up the total is indescribably dishonest. It's another version of the "six degrees of Hillary Clinton" game.
In fact, the 3.4% number grossly overestimates Hillary's supposed "Wall Street ties", because most people employed by banks who donated to her are simply liberal Democrats who think Hillary would be a good president, and have nothing to do with any kind of push for deregulation. The entire talking point is nonsense. But trying to push up the numbers fraudulently the way you are doing is another level of nonsense.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But you seem to be implying that Wall Street doesn't have an enormous influence on Washington politics. Only if you've been living in a cave of denial could you believe that. There's virtually no correlation between what the masses support and what gets enacted, unless moneyed interests happen to support the same thing. And that's true regardless of which party is in the majority.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)Where she is politically seems to be pretty much where the vast majority of Americans are, which positions her well for both the primary and the general elections. And I don't expect that, were she to win in 2016 that she's going to start launching wars left and right and giving out huge tax cuts to Wall Street high rollers. My guess is that she will likely continue/preserve the policies of her predecessor and, hopefully, expand on them, as well as promote good solid liberal appointments to SCOTUS and to the Federal Judiciary should she have opportunities to replace any of them, which is all fine by me. I'll be content knowing that Hillary wouldn't let the country go backwards on health care, LGBT rights, the right to choose, funding Planned Parenthood, etc. What she (or Bernie for that matter) will be able to get done in Congress will largely be dictated by what kind of Congress she has to work with but at least she will ensure that executive agencies can do their job unimpeded by right-wing sabotage/cripple/capture efforts and be able to influence things from the top via targeted executive orders as she is able to use them. I don't get why people try to make her (and even Obama) out to be "Republican-lite" when the Republicans wouldn't let them within 1000 light years of their party (and both Hillary and Obama would stay just as far away from them).
ion_theory
(235 posts)From what I've seen/heard/read from Hillary supporters, it's essentially the 'she's the only one that can win' argument. What doesn't make sense to me with that argument is how exactly can Bernie not win? A HUGE % of voters haven't heard one word from Bernie, mainly because they don't know how to get their news from anything but MSM. The country doesn't vote on issues anymore and it's like one big popularity contest. The debates will need to be a game changer for Bernie, and hopefully he is given the chance because they more people hear him, the more support he gets. By given a chance, I mean by the moderator(s) and coverage from, once again, the MSM. Even if Bernie lights up the stage, it can be manipulated by these damn capitalists because it's what they do. Shameful shit...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And I'd bet $50 that she'd have the country in a boots-on-the-ground shooting war within a year if she makes it to the WH. Every last bit of her hawkish rhetoric suggests as much. Just another neo-con interventionist and bankster-coddler, IMO.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"War" and "Wealth Inequality" aren't policy issues, they're just convenient bludgeons to use against political opponents when expedient to do so.
To quote Bruce Cockburn:
North, south, east, west
kill the best and buy the rest
it's just 'spend a buck to make a buck'
but you don't really give a flying fuck
about the people in misery.
From here (this should be the Third Way anthem):
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Thanks for the Bruce Cockburn reminder.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... there's none of these candidates that can pass a purity test
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)From her policies, actions, and history, I conclude the on social issues she is a moderate Democrat, sometimes reluctantly or late to the party such as in the case of gay marriage, and economically she is to the right of the President that describes his policies as mainstream 1980's Republican.
Moderate Democrat on social issues and 1980's Republican economically = Third Wayer. Third Way is a construct for the Republicans to find a landing place for their members who can't tolerate the social policy loons that have taken over the GOP, and instead infiltrate the Democratic party and make Republican policies more palatable.
Third Wayers are faux Democrats, and Hillary fails the test.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... make her a 3rd wayer right now?
tia
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)instead of window dressing, embrace of the trickle-down economic paradigm of the last 35 years, militarism and wanting to police the world in the name of corporate interests, unwillingness to take a stand on the disaster that is TPP, intent to continue the ruinous "war on drugs", buddying up to the verminous likes of Blankfein and War Criminal Henry Kissinger.
Shall I go on?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... does very little since people like Sanders voted for Commodities Futures Modification Act of 2000.
Glass Steagel is windows dressing without that one reversed...
But lets say we disagree on that the other part of your post are claims or conclusions with nothing backing it up.
I'm asking for her actions and votes that her CURRENT (since everyone is evolving on issues) stances on financial issues that make her 3rd way and embraces republican tenants...
I don't see any on her site etc, could you outline them?
tia
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)the Third Way? And being funded and backed by those same Third Way members?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She's a moderate repub who happens to be pro-choice, well, sort of.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Yugoslavia in 1999, voting records can not be changed, it is history.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)So are you saying that Bill Clinton is a militaristic war hawk too? Jus wonderin'
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)for his votes.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Unlike Hillary's vote to engage in an unjustified war in Iraq.
It is called judgment, and Bernie's was correct and Hillary's was wrong.
(Unless you subscribe to the line of thought that some Hillary supporters have floated, namely that Hillary had to vote for the Iraq war or risk "looking weak". In that case you can add cowardice to bad judgment).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This was not the only time Sanders voted for military action, his record has the votes. When he voted against the Brady Bill it was not with the majority. It is his record.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)And there are very, very few that would condemn votes for military action on a blanket basis.
The glaring difference is the Iraq vote, and it shows Hillary's horrible judgment and hawkish views.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)to do the inspections. Oh, the war in Afghanistan, Sanders voted yes on also. From the first Bush blamed Saddam and Iraq, the AUMF gave the authorization for military action, why not ask for the inspections first?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)You can be an honest person and still maintain your support for Hillary.
The vote "for the war in Afghanistan" was taken three days after 9/11, and the vote was to allow the President to go after the 9/11 terrorists.
All but one member of Congress voted yes on that.
Okay now. THINK.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now THINK.
senz
(11,945 posts)where the order came from, but most people thought it was probably Osama bin Laden.
The Bush administration didn't start their Iraq rhetoric until 2002, and they were never stupid enough to state that Saddam Hussein was actually behind 9/11.
I assume you were an adult in 2001, and frankly I'm surprised you don't know these things.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)threatened my Daddy".
senz
(11,945 posts)However, you and I were talking about Bernie's vote, along with everyone in Congress except for one person, to allow Bush to pursue the 9/11 perps. This resulted in our invasion of Afghanistan, ostensibly because they were harboring OBL. Bernie, unlike Hillary, later voted "no" on allowing Bush to invade Iraq.
The first vote had nothing to do with Iraq.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hawk also. Did the IWR say the inspections be completed and if WMD's was found then invade Iraq? Sure it did, Hillary voted to invade because of the WMD's, Bush removed the inspectors before the inspection was completed. This is a fact. The IWR was abused and everyone knows this but the RW who defends Bush on every plane. Bush was going to invade Iraq, proving WMD's was present would have changed the outcome if Bush not jumped in and rushed the invasion.
senz
(11,945 posts)Says something about her judgment, imo.
I know we're not going to change each other's minds, but at least you can discuss a topic without becoming abusive, so thanks for that.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Could I TOLERATE her? Yeah. Actively support? Not in a million years. She's WORSE than Obama. Look forward to more austerity policy and privatization of public goods ad services.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)There are some Democrats in favor of a "more muscular" foreign policy, you know "We came, we saw, he died. Ha ha ha ha.".
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)MindfulOne
(227 posts)We can't talk about it, there's just no discussing issues with her but on the odd occasion where we're both in a social setting all she talks about is Hillary doing the Nae Nae on Ellen, or how "real" she is, and "tough".
I do not get it.
oasis
(49,379 posts)Besides, Hillary's negatives are way overblown.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Certainly nobody else does.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I get that the only corporations that anyone here cares about are located in one street in NY, and that Biden's votes in favor of the credit card industry and the Iraq War are inconsequential, or that Bernie's relationship with Lockheed Martin and support of the $800 Billion dollar corporate welfare for Lockheed Martin in the f-35 is all well and good.http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
And of course voting to give immunity to CORPORATE gun manufacturers is totally cool with "progressives." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in
So I would have to disagree with those who have greater issues with corporate industries on a single street in NY state and are willing to give a pass to the murder for profit sector of the economy--but that's just me.
So no, I don't think Wall Street is worse than profiting from murder at home and abroad, and I find the hypocrisy of railing about Wall Street while not showing any concern about immunity and corporate welfare for Murder Inc a bit strange.
I don't know exactly what this evidence of cozy with Wall Street is. I know that there are some charts about financial donations that have thoroughly been debunked that continue to circulate, but facts are obviously pale in comparison to sloganeering. I do know that Wall Street is located in NY state and I would expect like all Senators Clinton promoted the business interests of her state, just like Al Franken promotes the medical device industry and Biden the credit card industry. But that of course doesn't register into this resurrection of late-19th century Populist rhetoric. And if you all were indebted farmers rallying around free coinage of silver, I could understand it. But we know from polling data that Sanders supporters are on average the most prosperous sector of the electorate. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
Mostly, my vote is my own. I don't need to reconcile a thing. I would like to know what you think gives you the right to demand others justify their democratic rights to you? I'm a Democrat who votes for Democrats. I make no apology for that. I vote in my interests, which are not the same as those of the $80k+ a year demographic. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
Most importantly, I have zero sympathy for people that haven't figured out they live in a capitalist state, that this nation was born of capitalism and that its founding documents codify the accumulation of capital. This country has been structured around inequality since its inception, yet suddenly now it becomes a concern, only because those groups who happily benefited from exploitation of the many for more than two centuries are starting to feel a bit of what it is like to live in the US.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I've noticed that not one Sanders supporter has stepped up to deal with your post.
Not one.
The last several additions to this thread just conveniently breezed past this post to continue the same, tired talking points and gratuitous insults.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Not that it would matter to you.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Want to try again?
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/252270-sanders-i-wouldnt-end-drone-program
I get that the only corporations that anyone here cares about are located in one street in NY, and that Biden's votes in favor of the credit card industry and the Iraq War are inconsequential, or that Bernie's relationship with Lockheed Martin and support of the $800 Billion dollar corporate welfare for Lockheed Martin in the f-35 is all well and good.http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
nd of course voting to give immunity to CORPORATE gun manufacturers is totally cool with "progressives." http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in
So I would have to disagree with those who have greater issues with corporate industries on a single street in NY state and are willing to give a pass to the murder for profit sector of the economy--but that's just me.
So no, I don't think Wall Street is worse than profiting from murder at home and abroad, and I find the hypocrisy of railing about Wall Street while not showing any concern about immunity and corporate welfare for Murder Inc a bit strange.
I don't know exactly what this evidence of cozy with Wall Street is. I know that there are some charts about financial donations that have thoroughly been debunked that continue to circulate, but facts are obviously pale in comparison to sloganeering. I do know that Wall Street is located in NY state and I would expect like all Senators Clinton promoted the business interests of her state, just like Al Franken promotes the medical device industry and Biden the credit card industry. But that of course doesn't register into this resurrection of late-19th century Populist rhetoric. And if you all were indebted farmers rallying around free coinage of silver, I could understand it. But we know from polling data that Sanders supporters are on average the most prosperous sector of the electorate. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wtuckrpu76/econTabReport.pdf
senz
(11,945 posts)the part that interested me, but now I'm tired. If I feel like it, I'll deal with the tripe tomorrow.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Articulate, too.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)smart guy.
Didn't think you would touch it. You can't.
You're pretty impressive with the personal attacks, though...
senz
(11,945 posts)I'm female. Have been one my entire long life. I'm assuming you are also, but this being the internet, anything is possible.
Haven't looked at the links yet (very busy today with real life responsibilities, but it looks like nothing but cheap attacks on an exceptionally good human being, and I'm not sure it's worth wading through the garbage in order to defend Bernie against an indefensible attack; however, it might be worth it just to see what the bad guys are up to). Now go ahead and laugh, etc., as I would expect of someone like you.
Coming from you, that's funny.
If and when I get around to the attack on Bernie, I'll let you know, Bobbie Jo.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)You wrote:
If you honestly believe that, then I don't think you know jack about this country, BainsBane. I suppose you call yourself a Democrat, but you are unaware that this country was not founded on economic principles; it was founded on political principles, those of democracy, not capitalism. This is not a "capitalist state." It is a democratic republic. Do you even know what that is? This country was not built on crass materialism; it was built on the noble principle that "all men [sic] are created equal." It was not, as you claim, "structured around inequality since its inception." And that is your excuse for so callously dismissing inequality among American citizens?
Do you know what the word "democracy" means? "Demos" comes from Greek, meaning "common people." "Cracy" means "rule." Democracy means the people rule. It does not mean "capital" rules. This is rule of the people, not rule of money.
I'm amazed you don't understand these things. Maybe you went to high school after Civics was dropped from the curricula?
I've seen rightwingers on other fora claim that our Constitution codifies capitalism, and I was amazed that anyone could be so ignorant. As I had to tell those rightwingers, there is no mention of, or any allusion to, capitalism in our Constitution. I never expected to find ignorance like that on Democratic Underground.
If other Hillary followers think as you do, then I can begin to understand why so many of them on this forum seem strangely undemocratic at times.
You owe it to yourself to learn about our nation's founding principles. When you do, it will make you proud. (Or it should.)
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)
Locke, Rousseau, Smith: ie. liberalism. They were influenced by liberalism, the political corollary of capitalism--capitalism as posited against mercantilism and democracy as posited against monarchy. The Constitution is the quintessential liberal document and hence the quintessential capitalist document. It codifies the concept of individual rights, which is an essential component of capitalism and stood in contrast to the collective rights of pre-capitalist societies. The American revolution was called a revolution because it overturned colonialism--colonialism which depended on mercantilism.
Democracy is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Our Founding Fathers were the wealthiest men of the land, slaveholders and large Northern landholders. They were not ordinary Americans. In fact, they set up a series of mechanisms designed to distance government from the people. The government served their interests, and the constitution protected slavery. In the mid-19th century, as the economy became increasingly based on manufacturers, the nature of the economic elite shifted from wealthy landowners to factory owners. At the turn of the 20th century it was the industrialists whose names are well known, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc.... Certainly you couldn't suggest that our economy was not capitalist in that era?
If the early Republic wasn't capitalist at its foundation, what was it? Was it mercantilist? Feudal? What was its economic system? When did it become capitalist? I wonder if you actually know what capitalism is? Have you read Marx's Capital?
My points have nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. They derive from my background in history, a discipline in which I hold a PhD. The position is not right-wing but rather founded in Marxism, but Marxists certainly are not the only ones who make that point.
You take the mythology you learned in grade school as undisputed fact, and therein lies the problem. Ask yourself this. At what point was the US government "of the people"? At its founding when only white male property holders could vote, when a great portion of the population was enslaved and others denied full citizenship? Did it represent the people during Jim Crow, when only straight white men had full rights? Our government was representative in that it provided greater participation than under monarchy, but it never represented the people as a whole.
senz
(11,945 posts)The framers of our Constitution were not wealthy by our standards, they did not codify capitalism into our Constitution, and the economy of the United States at its founding bore almost no resemblance to capitalism as we know it today. The early republic was primarily agricultural with cottage industries and small shops.
You, in your insulting manner, characterize me as taking "the mythology you learned in grade school as undisputed fact, and therein lies the problem." While I wasn't a history major -- my B.A. and M.A. are in other subjects -- I do have some exposure to the enlightenment ideas that informed our nation's founders. They fervently believed in the value of the individual and the equality of "all men." They conceived of government as the agency by which "men" could secure their inalienable rights -- and they believed in those rights. They carefully constructed a Constitution that would enable Americans to govern themselves to ensure all citizens a decent chance at happiness. They were concerned with human rights, the avoidance of tyranny (by the majority or a minority), and a stable, democratic republic.
Yes, they lived in a time when it did not occur to most people that Blacks were full-fledged human beings, that Native Americans had any rights, and that women should have the same rights as men. But they left us with a Constitution so thoughtfully constructed that we have been able to address the social flaws of their time and ours, as we became aware of them. And it had nothing to do with capitalism.
mythology
(9,527 posts)That slavery drove substantial portions of the economy and a significant amount of the westward pressure that caused conflicts with the native populations who had sided with the British in the Seven Year's War and had received promises that the colonists wouldn't expand.
Additionally more than a quarter of our presidents have owned slaves. 32 of the first 36 years of this country, the president was a slave owner. Slaves literally built the White House. In Philadelphia what is today known as Independence Hall is where slaves were bought and sold. Even Jefferson who decried the role of slavery (in spite of owning many himself) referred to the King of England's attempts to stir up slave insurrections in his list of grievances against the king.
Women didn't have the right to vote (other than in New Jersey who took that away in 1807).
Inequality, particularly over black slaves and the native population, is clearly deeply ingrained in how the colonists got to the notion of freedom.
Gothmog
(145,152 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)A lot of the newly minted socialists seem to have a blind spot in this whole area. Odd to me.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)War? Wall Street? They just don't appear to give a fuck.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)who make shit up.
You pay absolutely no attention to what Hillary has been saying for the last two months and keep talking about war and Wall Street. On the other hand we know Bernie's ideas and don't disagree with them.
Go to correctrecord.org and read about Hillary's positions. It isn't an anti Sanders sight it is an anti repub site.
There is very little difference between Hillary's positions and Bernie's positions.
I am sure you disagree with that and I say it is because you are describing a Hillary that doesn't exist.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Her votes, speeches, and policies are a matter of record, and when these are brought up the Hillary folks cry foul.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)there is no reason to debate people with nothing truthful to say.
MoveIt
(399 posts)We are nothing if not hopeful.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)the worst in HRC.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)if policy discussions are not going to be entertained.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Why would a HRC supporter bother?
Last night here showed me we will not get an honest debate about HRC here.
It is pointless.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)According to her supporters here Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevent cancer.
And don't even get me started on what they say about him at the Other Website.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)to weight the vitriol against candidates here your side wins every day.
That glass house thing you mentioned earlier.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)trying to talk to other people who have an ideology to push. It is a waste of time.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)discuss their political ideology?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We can agree on what they are.
But you have an idea in your mind what Hillary's positions are. Your ideas are not what Hillary positions are so it is a waste of time to tell me what they are and expect me to defend them as the OP does.
Get it? That's what wing nuts do when they call a progressive talk show. They throw out a wing nut talking point which is bull shit and expect the host to defend it. I am not going to do that.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... Sanders doesn't pass the purity test Hillary is subjected to why should I take a chance on Sanders?!
Regards
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)by claiming that there is a purity test? Ok, yeah.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... knowing whatever test Hillary is going to be subjected to none of the candidates can pass with clean hands
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Instead of discussion being welcomed, they want to shut it down - before one vote has been cast!
WDIM
(1,662 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Conspiracy.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)being able to defend her "assad must go" stand, despite the fact that we are on the brink of war with Russia over it.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)us. So why bother engaging with people who just want to insult you?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What does that say about people who do nothing but insult DUers there?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I was just agreeing with you, justin!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Cheers!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Alert stalking Bernie supporters, calling them disgusting names, accusing Bernie of being funded by Israel.
Shameful.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You really should give us the silent treatment.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have to head out for an hour but i do hope you use the silent treatment.
And enjoy the secret group you belong to.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People in glass houses and all that.
Ciao!
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Why should one side be silent when the other side is not?
Also, I am glad to hear that there is another place where people are posting things that they cannot say here. That says a lot.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)about other DUers?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That way they can continue to deny what's being said over there.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I am not about to be lead into a hide. He admitted above that he posts elsewhere, and he did not deny that the things posted offsite were disparaging to other DUers. That is enough for me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Btw i never hid the fact i posted there. I just don't post as often as others there.
But it is interesting you can't bother to answer my question.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Rob H.
(5,351 posts)Unless the Hillary supporter who had "#fuckthebern" in her sig line meant it as some sort of compliment.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That sig line is classy, I guess that's what they consider political discourse.
Rob H.
(5,351 posts)...that's for sure. It's gone from her sig line but still on her "About Me" page. Classy!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I bet they could sell quite a few at the Cave.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Remember, they took up residence in Camp Weathervane.
It's a mistake to assume they care about anything but forcing the American people to live with Hillary as president.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Coming from you, that's high praise.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Given that Sanders and Clinton voted differently in the Senate on a grand total of 31 bills in 2 years, agreeing 93% of the time, if Clinton took a Republican position half the time, and even if I were to stipulate that all 7% of those votes not in common were examples of Clinton taking a Republican position, that still leaves Sanders taking a Republican position 43% of the time.
And given that those votes included Sanders voting against immigration reform and voting against a nuclear treaty with India, I'm not sure you can say with any confidence that Sanders took the inherently more liberal position on all of those.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
Also awkwardly for your premise, Clinton was rated the 11th most liberal Senator while she was in office. Granted Sanders was first, but both Biden and Obama were ranked as less liberal than Clinton by DW-Nominate scores. Biden was rated the median Democratic Senator at 33, meaning Clinton was substantially further to the left than the median member of the Democratic caucus.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
The advantage of having some sort of statistical analysis is that it can be verified and debated against. What you offered was varnished opinion, one that really isn't supported by much.