• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
With the exception of the gun lobby, the corporate corn subsidy lobby, the Jewish lobby when it comes to the Palestinians, and all the Democratic Party fundraising he's done for years in exchange for not having a Democratic challenge for his Vermont seat after one almost defeated him.

Not trying to downplay his campaign platform. I hope he has a huge impact with it. I just don't think he can accomplish what he wants to as POTUS. For that I think Clinton will do a better job.
Click to expand...

She would definitely do a better job of moving the Democratic party further to the right and delaying and diluting or eliminating substantive progressive accomplishment.

But that's why I could never vote for her. Sanders losing the primary would not dramatically impact my life negatively, but that will not be true for most Americans.
 
bruto said:
I wouldn't consider Bernie all that pure myself, but must put in one word on his behalf with relation to the gun issue. Bernie is in an unusual position here, being from Vermont. He became representative in part because his Republican predecessor, who had been comfortably assured of incumbency, made a vote on "assault weapons" in congress that so angered the rather vociferous Vermont hunters that they campaigned to throw Peter Smith out, and much of Bernie's support was backlash from people who would ordinarily probably have spat on him. He then turned out to be a pretty good congressman, and has stayed popular with many voters who would not ordinarily want to be considered liberal. Whether you like him and his position or not, his silence on gun control issues has been directly responsive to his Vermont constituency. edit to add: and whatever side you're on, you might keep in mind that when trying to evaluate Bernie's image as an all-ideals anti-political candidate, that has been an opportunistic and politic position in the real world. I like Bernie, but even if his view of reality differs from some others, don't think for a minute he's not calculating what is needed for success.
Click to expand...

Can't see a word I disagree with.

I do not support Sanders because I think he is an amazingly special individual, I support Sanders' Policies and trust that he would willingly and eagerly fight to realize these policies and even if he couldn't get them passed, he wouldn't trade them away for opposing compromises that were worse than doing nothing.

As for Hillary, I don't think she's ever seen a conservative economic plan or a neoconservative foreign policy where she could not find a lot to like.
 
Trakar said:
...his record is remarkably consistent and stable ... over the last half century or so
Click to expand...
I quibble with this, in Sanders favor.

When Sanders was mayor of Burlington, and he had a hard-on for thugs like Castro, and he proudly proclaimed tiny little Burlington as the only town in the US with a foreign policy, he was a complete tool -- the sort of ideological zealot who taught me that irrationality isn't the exclusive domain of the right. He's matured since then.
 
I agree with Varwoche that Bernie has matured a good deal since the days of the "People's Republic of Burlington," but suspect that even though growing older and wiser is considered a virtue in most walks of life it provides ugly ammunition for opponents in politics. At one point in a congressional campaign one of Bernie's opponents tried to smear him with a comment he had made about the Kennedy Nixon debates 30-odd years before (twisted out of context besides), to suggest that Bernie had despised Kennedy and should therefore lose to a Republican. Don't bother to try to figure that one out. Those who wish to throw poo will throw it.

I like Bernie, which despite what some people seem to suggest does not mean I must therefore hate Hillary. I suspect that Hillary will prevail, and consider her a better bet than any Republicans so far running, and I suspect my measly little Vermont vote will go to Hillary in November (3 electoral votes which is what, maybe half of Orlando?) but we have a primary tomorrow, and my measly little Vermont vote will go to Bernie anyway.
 
Trakar said:
She would definitely do a better job of moving the Democratic party further to the right and delaying and diluting or eliminating substantive progressive accomplishment.

But that's why I could never vote for her. Sanders losing the primary would not dramatically impact my life negatively, but that will not be true for most Americans.
Click to expand...
This is where I agree to disagree. You believe the GOP narrative about Clinton. You aren't looking at her actual record.
 
varwoche said:
I quibble with this, in Sanders favor.

When Sanders was mayor of Burlington, and he had a hard-on for thugs like Castro, and he proudly proclaimed tiny little Burlington as the only town in the US with a foreign policy, he was a complete tool -- the sort of ideological zealot who taught me that irrationality isn't the exclusive domain of the right. He's matured since then.
Click to expand...

Both Clinton and Sanders have early years I can so relate to. I feel like I know both of them like they were my friends during that time period because I have friends that were just like each of them.

BTW, I don't have an issue with Sanders' earlier embrace of Castro. And I especially don't have an issue with who Clinton is now.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
But that's why I could never vote for her. Sanders losing the primary would not dramatically impact my life negatively, but that will not be true for most Americans.
Click to expand...


Really? Most people would have their lives "dramatically" affected if Sanders loses the primary?

I've lived through six presidents since I was old enough to vote. I'm not sure I could point to any of them and say that that president affected my life "dramatically".

If I were poorer, it might be true that Obamacare, and hence Obama, affected my life dramatically.

I graduated with an engineering degree in 1987, which meant that I needed a job, and aerospace firms were hiring boatloads of engineers to work on Star Wars, so I might say that Reagan affected my life dramatically because I moved to California, which ultimately led to me meeting my wife, and everything that came of that, but, really, that's more in the line of "very small things that had a huge affect on your life".

People make too much of this sort of thing. Yes, it's possible that one president or another will turn the tide of history in a grand and dramatic fashion, in the way that a Hitler or a Lincoln did, but it's more likely that things will just go along pretty much as they have been.

People often thing that presidents affect their lives dramatically because they think that presidents affect the economy dramatically. Who knows? Maybe they do. I haven't seen a lot of that myself, but maybe I just didn't know the signs to look for.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
This meme has gone unchallenged long enough. Time to set the record straight...

On The Issues: Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...
While I don't take great issue with the characterization of the candidates there I find that an odd chart, as I can't quite figure out what percentage greater than 100 would put anyone above the center line, and how a social liberal and fiscal conservative might fit on it.

I was going to go on about this but looked more at the site of origin, and find it rather interesting. Without checking too hard for accuracy it looks pretty reasonable, and it's interesting not only how close the Democrats are to each other on the overall scale, but how close the Republicans are to each other too.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is where I agree to disagree. You believe the GOP narrative about Clinton. You aren't looking at her actual record.
Click to expand...

I suspect that we are both looking at her record, selectively, and with different weighting on issues that we individually find significant.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
This meme has gone unchallenged long enough. Time to set the record straight...

On The Issues: Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

This seems to only be judging the candidates on economic and social issues, and even then is only looking at a very narrow slice of what she has said on the campaign trail. I don't tend to pay much attention to what candidates say when they are campaigning, as all you tend to get is what they want their target audience to believe.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
This meme has gone unchallenged long enough. Time to set the record straight...

On The Issues: Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

Does that include what she told Goldman Sachs in exchange for $650,000?

Lolz, just joshing! we all know that it doesn't and moreover her fans don't care about what she said there and as such don't care about the issues.

We know she doesn't think that calling inner city kids "superpredators" is an issue anymore.
 
16.5 said:
Does that include what she told Goldman Sachs in exchange for $650,000?

Lolz, just joshing! we all know that it doesn't and moreover her fans don't care about what she said there and as such don't care about the issues.

We know she doesn't think that calling inner city kids "superpredators" is an issue anymore.
Click to expand...

Care to explain this collection of non-sequiturs ?
 
Argumemnon said:
Complete lack of argument noted.
Click to expand...

Dude, it was funny. Of course it didn't have an argument, an argument would have ruined the joke.

What you SHOULD have posted in response is "Wow, that is a GREAT counter-point!" See if you can figure out why.
 
Trakar said:
This seems to only be judging the candidates on economic and social issues,
Click to expand...
That's because in their system every issue is categorized as either economic or social. Just to remind you, here is the full list of issues analyzed. Did they miss something important?

Abortion
Budget & Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy & Oil
Environment
Families & Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Government Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles & Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War & Peace
Welfare & Poverty

and even then is only looking at a very narrow slice of what she has said on the campaign trail.
Click to expand...
Are you blind? Quotes from as far back as 1983, and yet all you saw was "a very narrow slice of what she has said on the campaign trail"? And the voting records - did you not see them?

Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

I don't tend to pay much attention to what candidates say when they are campaigning, as all you tend to get is what they want their target audience to believe.
Click to expand...
Seems you don't pay attention to anything a candidate says if it might question your cherished beliefs.
 
Perspective time!

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $730,000 to Hillary Clinton.

Since 2013, Goldman Sachs and its employees have paid/donated $534.58 to Donald Trump.

If you are not curious about what Hillary told the bankers at GS in those highly compensated meetings, do the rest of us a favor and don't vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom