You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Democrat Debate 8 [Univision] Agent Smith goes to Washington
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
teruterubozu
Member
All that's nice and good, but you and I both know that once a good chunk of middle class Americans hear the words "raising taxes", there will be nothing else that Bernie can say to save it.
Hell, look at how GAF reacted in that thread about his tax plans. How do you think the general population will take hearing that they're going to have to make significant financial sacrifices for the common good?
Well it would be a drastic choice if it comes down to Bernie vs. Trump. Raise taxes for the common good or vote super racist asshole. Maybe America needs a kick in the ass choice like that.
TheOohChild
Member
Questioning someone's toughness against Wall Street is obviously the same thing as suggesting someone is sympathetic to violent dictatorships.
All that's nice and good, but you and I both know that once a good chunk of middle class Americans hear the words "raising taxes", there will be nothing else that Bernie can say to save it.
Hell, look at how GAF reacted in that thread about his tax plans. How do you think the general population will take hearing that they're going to have to make significant financial sacrifices for the common good?
I'm sure in a General Election people will flock to Trumps economical plans of trickle down economics. The 10 trillion deficit from his plan is surely going to be invested back into the economy and jobs.
How is it, that Bernie's plans would be scrutinized yet Trump's would get a pass is something I don't understand. Also I very much doubt the general population is more in favor of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than financing healthcare, paid leave, infrastructure and education
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I'm sure in a General Election people will flock to Drumpfs economical plans of trickle down economics. The 10 trillion deficit from his plan is surely going to be invested back into the economy and jobs.
How is it, that Bernie's plans would be scrutinized yet Drumpf's would get a pass is something I don't understand. Also I very much doubt the general population is more in favor of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than financing healthcare, paid leave, infrastructure and education
Bernie's isn't going to get scrutinized either, at least honestly, that's the point. If it was "the healthcare savings will exceed the tax raises" would get more play.
I'm sure in a General Election people will flock to Trumps economical plans of trickle down economics. The 10 trillion deficit from his plan is surely going to be invested back into the economy and jobs.
How is it, that Bernie's plans would be scrutinized yet Trump's would get a pass is something I don't understand. Also I very much doubt the general population is more in favor of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires than financing healthcare, paid leave, infrastructure and education
They've done it before, and they'll do it again. People will follow anything if you dress it up nice a pretty.
If you're suggesting that we can never raise taxes even when it'll save people money overall, don't take offense when people call Hillary center-right.
Ok, but how do you fix this without identifying the problem?
That definition of populism is a really great example of why I don't like it in elections. Really don't like unifying an electorate against an evil "other". Seen it go wrong way too many times.
Ok, but how do you fix this without identifying the problem?
When had Hillary said she had nothing to do with TPP?
I've only ever seen her say that she was involved and supported it when she was in office, but revoked her support because she didn't like what it morphed into after she left.
That's pretty much what she's said.
I'm sure they'll wait to vote on it in the lame duck session so as not to influence the elections, at least for Democrats.
She has never really detailed what specifically she doesn't like about it and perpetually hedges ("As of today..."), so it's hard to pin down what exactly her objections are. She's no longer in the Senate and its merely pending Congressional approval, so I'm sure we never will either.
So basically, all we know is she loved it until she didn't, but who knows why.
Dirtyshubb
Member
While that is true and history often repeats itself I do feel America is getting to a point where traditional politicians and political ideals are being revealed to many for the bullshit that they are.They've done it before, and they'll do it again. People will follow anything if you dress it up nice a pretty.
I only wish the UK was near that point so we could get someone like Bernie to fight for us with enough credibility to potentially convince the masses to vote for them. That's why I hope Bernie wins because it could really help a lot of other countries to wake you and start fighting for everyone and not a select few as we currently have.
That's pretty much what she's said.
I'm sure they'll wait to vote on it in the lame duck session so as not to influence the elections, at least for Democrats.
She has never really detailed what specifically she doesn't like about it and perpetually hedges ("As of today..."), so it's hard to pin down what exactly her objections are. She's no longer in the Senate and its merely pending Congressional approval, so I'm sure we never will either.
So basically, all we know is she loved it until she didn't, but who knows why.
Your post just echoes what I said.
Hillary Clinton has never said she had nothing to do with TPP. She's always said she supported it while in office, but upon reviewing what TPP became after she left she couldn't support it. That's a huge difference.
Your link even points out that while she was still in office, TPP was still being drafted, so it is possible that the final version of the deal looks drastically different than it did when she was apart of the administration.
Grover Cleveland
Member
Bernie's isn't going to get scrutinized either, at least honestly, that's the point. If it was "the healthcare savings will exceed the tax raises" would get more play.
This.
At the end of the day, people aren't going to go do research on every single aspect, good or bad, of every policy proposed by these candidates. They're going to go with the small tidbits and soundbites that are fed to them by the media and "Bernie Sanders wants to raise your taxes" is a really easy message to get across to people.
Senator Sanders isn't the first man to fight for social democracy. He won't be the first to lose that fight badly either.
They've done it before, and they'll do it again. People will follow anything if you dress it up nice a pretty.
And this.
Trump has shown himself to be a snake oil salesman of the highest order. He's going to say exactly what people want to hear, exactly how people want to hear it.
Your post just echoes what I said.
Hillary Clinton has never said she had nothing to do with TPP. She's always said she supported it while in office, but upon reviewing what TPP became after she left she couldn't support it. That's a huge difference.
Your link even points out that while she was still in office, TPP was still being drafted, so it is possible that the final version of the deal looks drastically different than it did when she was apart of the administration.
If Hillary was against the TPP, she would have rallied her supporters to stop it. She hasn't done any lobbying and at best her position seems to be one of having her cake and eating it. Basically if Clinton wanted to address the issues voters had with her, she would take a definitive stand instead of proposing half measures like saying she is against the TPP because it's not the gold standard in trade deals without lifting one finger to do anything to stop it.
When you take this in a vacuum it's not a big deal, but when you have multiple instances of Hillary changing her position while not changing her actions - it confounds her issues with trust and calls her positions into question.
They've done it before, and they'll do it again. People will follow anything if you dress it up nice a pretty.
Obviously as a Sanders supporters I'm more optomistic about the electorate because otherwise Trump is guaranteed a win regardless of who wins the nomination on the Dem side.
If Hillary was against the TPP, she would have rallied her supporters to stop it. She hasn't done any lobbying and at best her position seems to be one of having her cake and eating it. Basically if Clinton wanted to address the issues voters had with her, she would take a definitive stand instead of proposing half measures like saying she is against the TPP because it's not the gold standard in trade deals without lifting one finger to do anything to stop it.
When you take this in a vacuum it's not a big deal, but when you have multiple instances of Hillary changing her position while not changing her actions - it confounds her issues with trust and calls her positions into question.
She wasn't Secretary of State anymore by the time TPP was finalized, so she was in no position to actually know what was in it until the final text was released for everyone to scrutinize.
Can you provide specific and detailed examples of when "Hillary changed her position while not changing her actions"?
For example, are you talking about the infamous case alleged by Elizabeth Warren and the bankruptcy bill? Because I and others have already explained why that too is distorted BS. For example, here.
Please provide specifics instead of just regurgitating memes.
BlastProcessing
Member
If you're suggesting that we can never raise taxes even when it'll save people money overall, don't take offense when people call Hillary center-right.
Ok, but how do you fix this without identifying the problem?
Like with anything else in politics, with details. Boring, boring, detail.
For example, you can't just say that you are going to break up the banks without acknowledging what happened when we broke up AT&T. You need to demonstrate that you understand how such things have failed in the past and lay out how you will avoid them.
Well it would be a drastic choice if it comes down to Bernie vs. Trump. Raise taxes for the common good or vote super racist asshole. Maybe America needs a kick in the ass choice like that.
With only Trump of the two possibly getting things passed, since a Bernie would have no path to getting legislation through a Republican controlled House.
Fortunately not gonna come down to that, it's Trump v. Hillary.
If Hillary was against the TPP, she would have rallied her supporters to stop it. She hasn't done any lobbying and at best her position seems to be one of having her cake and eating it. Basically if Clinton wanted to address the issues voters had with her, she would take a definitive stand instead of proposing half measures like saying she is against the TPP because it's not the gold standard in trade deals without lifting one finger to do anything to stop it.
When you take this in a vacuum it's not a big deal, but when you have multiple instances of Hillary changing her position while not changing her actions - it confounds her issues with trust and calls her positions into question.
... Huh? This makes absolutely no sense.
What exactly do you expect Hillary to do here? You realize she's is a *former* member of the administration, right? She has no legislative power or influence at the moment other than openly stating that she doesn't support TPP, which is what she did.
What do you think she should have done to stop it?
thehypocrite
Member
Your joke posts lack the funny part.The bogeyman is financial services and the Establishment. Although I guess she is the Sith Lord of the latter.
The financial industry as a "rent seeking" apparatus is a clear threat to equality and sustainability. Even a white house report acknowledge as much.
BlastProcessing
Member
Your joke posts lack the funny part.
The financial industry as a "rent seeking" apparatus is a clear threat to equality and sustainability. Even a white house report acknowledge as much.
But isn't the White House part of the Establishment? Why would they criticize the financial industry and, more importantly, why would you believe their critique?
thehypocrite
Member
A report of a group of white house economist doesn't equal a policy. There's many reports that show obvious things without receiving a significant policy follow up. There's many, many people in government trying their best to impact positively, plus even bad people & bad governments can do good things sometimes. So I don't see an issue with that.But isn't the White House part of the Establishment? Why would they criticize the financial industry and, more importantly, why would you believe their critique?
... Huh? This makes absolutely no sense.
What exactly do you expect Hillary to do here? You realize she's is a *former* member of the administration, right? She has no legislative power or influence at the moment other than openly stating that she doesn't support TPP, which is what she did.
What do you think she should have done to stop it?
I wasn't disagreeing with you earlier, only providing a link to reinforce what you were saying. It's also quite likely certain provisions were changed while she was Secretary of State and the deal was still being finalized, but I also doubt she is super intimately familiar with it at this point.
That said, to say she doesn't have any influence at the moment regarding TPP is laughable. She's got quite the bully pulpit as the Democratic frontrunner, so there's plenty she can do if she feels strongly one or way or the other.
But she's likely not going to say much of anything one way or another because there's little point for her in opening that political can of worms, especially when Sanders is and will attack her on it and it won't earn her any goodwill from the Obama administration, whose coattails she's trying to hitch a ride on.
Given her record and general views though, she likely does support it, but that's my personal opinion. If and when she secures the nomination, I'm pretty sure that'll be the last we hear of the TPP until it surfaces for a vote in Congress (and even then the major news outlet will barely cover it).
... Huh? This makes absolutely no sense.
What exactly do you expect Hillary to do here? You realize she's is a *former* member of the administration, right? She has no legislative power or influence at the moment other than openly stating that she doesn't support TPP, which is what she did.
What do you think she should have done to stop it?
Look, we have different positions on the matter - lets agree to disagree.
I'm just saying how it looks to me. I think when Clinton is not perceived in a positive light in terms of trust and this type of thing hurts her. Same with not releasing the transcripts or attacking Bernie on the Wall Street bailout or being endorsed by the NRA/Koch brothers. These are issues that bother me just as much as a socialist with unicorns and rainbows possibly winning the nomination bothers you.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.