BrutishMrFish
Member
Don't worry, the Republicans have been trying to paint her as a socialist, so it all evens out.
Democrat Debate 7 [CNN] But...the electorate refused to change
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Don't worry, the Republicans have been trying to paint her as a socialist, so it all evens out.
Atomic Playboy
Member
She'll pick someone whose ideology is more in line with the person she voted against... Well, I can't find any fault with that logic.
Obama kinda had the whole problem of an economic collapse if he didn't bail out wall street and too big to fail.
And then immediately after dealing with that mess he had the rather show-stopping problem of the tea party invasion.
See, this is where you fail to see the very simple point.
You are begging the question. You assume that these policies are inherently, necessarily bad.
You are wrong, and we have decades of empirical economic research to prove it. The trouble is that you will never believe it, because you've already assumed your conclusion.
I just don't understand how the fuck people expect Bernie to change anything with the way Congress is now, and with liberal voters generally not giving a single fuck about midterms. Obama could just barely make some incremental changes... how is Bernie going to make sweeping ones? I'm not saying we shouldn't vote for him, I'm just wondering where your expectations are at...
Weak on wall street makes absolute no sense to me when he signed Dodd frank, which itself was passed along party lines and which every republican candidate has promised to repeal.
I would probably note that oftentimes working within the system is the only way to take it down ultimately. You have to pick your battles strategically, and not kill yourself sticking your neck out over an unpopular ideal.
shadowsdarknes
Member
It's a great thing.
Bernie Sanders has managed to gain a relatively large political influence (by being one of 100 senators) by representing a small group of people admirably.
And that's why he's so popular in his home state. He does good work.
The Republicans follow a similar strategy by dominating local politics. They govern and gain influence in municipalities and state legislatures and as an aggregate the GOP holds a ton of governing power.
Yes, Bernie has managed to have a pretty admirable public service career. And he utilized that luxury of being from a small state to gain a relatively large influence.
But yeah, I don't really fault Clinton or other progressive minded people for playing the game like most everyone else. Pretty much every politician would lose an election by not raising money from big money sources.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Being President is easy.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for what she stands for. A vote for Trump has nothing to do with what he stands for. I don't understand...
Neither does Wreav
theshizzle
Member
Abstrusity
Member
Thankfully, Reddit doesn't contribute many votes. I mean, I'm a Sanders supporter, myself, because there's a LOT of anti-Hillary sentiment around here and I fear she'll fall victim to the same trap Obama did by trying to compromise with the uncompromising Congress. Except she may not get a second term.
So, if neither candidate could get something through Congress, I'd rather the one that aims much higher and can safely compromise without...compromising the purpose of the bill.
If Sanders doesn't win, I'll vote for Hillary with no qualms. But that brings us back to what I see on Reddit -- people unironically feeling that we should "Feel the Bern or burn it down."
The only thing I'm really worried about is lower Dem turnout due to Voter ID and polling places being overrun for 15 hours straight, and the latter is only an extrapolation from what we saw last time, with 8 hour waiting times to vote in some areas if I remember right.
All told, Clinton is a neoliberal, but so were Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton... Pretty much everyone after the McGovern disaster.
Anti-establishment sentiment is a fickle thing, but I don't think it'll be enough to crush the Hilldog, this time.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Bernie is hoping that along with his Presidency comes more seats for the Democrats so he can have some room to govern.
He wants to drive the Republicans out of Congress so long as they continue to be obstructionists.
His argument is that Hillary doesn't have the political capital or aspirations to draw voters to the polls.
soundahfekz
Member
Orbis Tabula
Member
Because people successfully misrepresent things and attack people by twisting innocent moments all the time in politics. Is that surprising? How about John Kerry's war record?
Just look at how the email "scandal" is been twisted and drawn out for the last 9 months.
You must not understand politics. Everything will be cherry picked. Innocuous things get used against people all the time.
excelsiorlef
Member
All I got from your post is that you think you have some incredible skills of psychoanalysis...
I mean we're talking about vibes now?
And that's enough to make you think of Wizard Hitler.
No I don't understand because it's illegal for companies to contribute money directly to politicians, and a wall street CEO can only contribute $2700 maximum to a politician, not millions.
If you are talking about Super PACS, then unions donate way more than any Wall Street firms, yet Bernie only talks about Wall Street and never talks about how shitty unions are. In a perfect world, Super PACS wouldn't be allowed, but until you can get an amendment or a liberal court to overturn Citizens United, there's nothing you can do about it.
And you may not have said Wall Street is evil, but Bernie has said that Wall Street is built on fraud and is designed to steal people's money and that the execs should be jailed.
Bernie Sanders: 'The Business Model Of Wall Street Is Fraud'
boiled goose
good with gravy
A few examples.
Iraq war. Benefited american people? No. Military industrial complex and oil made a killing.
Wall street bailout. Necessary? Maybe. The way it was done was extremely soft on the actual people responsible and basically socialized the losses and privatized the gains. See Iceland for a different approach. Big banks broken? Nah bigger than ever.
Trade policies. Tons of money for multinational corporations at the expense of the average citizen.
Fracking. I dont go as far as Sanders as saying it should be not allowed entirely, but does it currently make a killing for big oil while fucking up regular people. Yes.
The currently supported tax levels.
Minimum wage, etc.
We can keep going, but you have to understand one thing. The point is that laws are continuously skewed for the wealthy and corporations. It's not like Hillary is specifically to blame, but she works and promotes this broken and corrupt system.
We know wealthy inequality is increasing.
We know student dept is a disaster.
If our government represented its citizens equally and not donors, shit would be different.
When Hillary says real change is too hard, what she means is that real change would not be approved by those with real power. aka the donors.
shadowsdarknes
Member
You're assuming that the American public is rational and that clips and quotes can't be taken out of context.
Assuming that the best research and analysis tells us that Hillary Clinton has serious aspirations of regulating Wall Street, it wouldn't be hard to take a few clips out of context to slander her.
If Trump is running a "I can't be bought" campaign, a simple clip of Hillary saying, "I loved having the opportunity to speak with the great minds of Goldman Sachs" would look bad.
Obama says perfectly normal stuff all the time but it gets twisted and taken out of context.
"Children are out future" - Obama
"How can Obama mean that when he allowed for 300,000 aborted babies to die last year?" - Americans for prosperity.
That Roberts isn't as right wing as Scalia was doesn't mean he's a moderate.
It's crazy to suggest Hillary would go for someone like Roberts when we already know she voted against the original article. It takes legit mental gymnastics.
Weren't most of those plans put into place at the tail end of Bush's reign?
For the most part, I thought Obama just went with what was already the plan.
What she means is she understands that there is a lot of inertia in politics. This is something that many democrat voters don't seem to understand. If a car is moving 60 mph you can hit the brakes now but you sure as hell won't be stopping instantly. You want to go in reverse it's going to take even longer. That concept holds true in politics too.
What do you expect Hilary to do then? She's literally saying if you want another 4 years obama, vote for her.If you want another 4 years of progressive legislation struggling to pass at all vote for her. So why ask so much about Bernie passing stuff, when apparently your fine with Hilary passing nothing? If Bernie doesn't get his main stuff passed and working, he's basically Hilary at that point. So why even vote for Hilary in the primaries?
ugaboga232
Member
I think that supports what boiled goose is saying though.
Tesseract
Banned
Too bad? The American public deserves access to everything candidates do or say to raise money.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree unions should not donate either. I want to get all big money out!
Practical over principle is a fair and honest discussion!
You are missing the point by setting the standard as republicans! They are even more corrupt! If wall street did not run DC the legislation would be much tougher! for example glass steagall.
If he supports that then why is he confused why people advocate for less radical change.
I'm confused.
Agreed.
She is weird. She oscillates between being fairly progressive and almost centrist.
More liberal than Senator Obama, but center or center-right on particular things.
Even so, she almost certainly would be a solid blue justice in the supreme court.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Square2015
Member
I need to know will the debate tonight help Bernie or not? (I missed it unfortunately)
Also is he expanding/diversifying his message at all?
Also is he expanding/diversifying his message at all?
excelsiorlef
Member
That's funny because he refuses to contribute financially on principle to any down ticket Dems.
Oh and he's not brining in people either. He can't even get his youth base out in significant numbers.
ugaboga232
Member
I don't think physics metaphors hold well in politics but your point that it takes time to change opinions is because of the middle man of donors/special interests that hold on until public opinion is heavily against them.
Nope. I see pretty much everything staying the same honestly.
It has a lot less to do with special interests in my opinion. Half the electorate doesn't support the issues either.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I think the whole discussion of "they can't get any of this stuff done anyway!" is really a dead-end discussion.
Both candidates realize political gridlock is real. Both have their ways of doing things. However, signing legislation is not the only thing a president does.
Foreign policy, diplomacy, leadership,the justice department, judicial nominations, executive orders, veto power, etc. are all opportunities for the President to shape the country into the mold of their respective world views.
I'd prefer Bernie to Hillary, this isn't about that. It's about the same kind of disillusion I see people having with Bernie that they did with Obama... Call me a pessimist on this, but I just can't see Bernie's agenda with our current Congress... Maybe not even with a more liberal Congress.
boiled goose
good with gravy
As someone following the campaign to me this was the first debate that Hillary clearly won TBH. This is in the context of Sanders needing to gain momentum.
To people seeing Sanders for the first time, they might have had a different impression.
He started strong but lost steam when playing terrible defense on guns and Auto bailout. He seemed unprepared unfortunately.
I know what. The agenda and inertia are set by special interests. Not constituents. We know this.
https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/
let me try to unpack at least part of this.
First, The public overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War when it started, so the argument that it wasn't representing the will of the people is simply wrong:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
Second, yes, the bailout was necessary. Not maybe, not perhaps, it was, period. You are either being purposefully obtuse or are completely oblivious to the reality of what was happening.
No, it didn't socialize the losses and privatize the gains.
One example, since we all love talking about them:
Goldman's stock is still below the 10-year peak.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations/stock-chart/
And the US closed TARP with $15.3Bi in profits:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/
Finally, I've said enough about the misguided view that people have on free trade, and no one has actually tried to engage on the clear and overwhelming empirical evidence on the positive impact of free trade on the economy. Feel free to search past posts if someone is so inclined.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Seriously, Sanders really said that problem with racism is white people don't know what it's like to be poor and live in ghettos?
shadowsdarknes
Member
My post had nothing to do with whether or not Clinton should release the videos/transcripts.
It was merely a response to someone saying that these videos could not be used against her if they were "clean"
Well who defines clean? And that's assuming that the footage would not be taken out of context in a deliberate attempt to make her look bad.
As far as whether or not I think the videos should be released. Yes probably. Do I care? Eh not all that much.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
I missed the debate, so who won?
ugaboga232
Member
Tesseract
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
And then he wonders why he doesn't get support of the black community...
Same guy whose staff tried to convince the President of the NAACP's Charleston branch to support Sanders because Sanders is for welfare.
- Status