THIS is who they want to put in the Whitehouse? Really?!?

[Bubzer]

What Hillary conveniently left out is that her husband, President Bill Clinton, along with her current campaign’s chief financial officer, Gary Gensler, drafted and pushed to insert the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) into an 11,000 page must-pass annual budget appropriation at the final hour. Then her husband enthusiastically signed it into law.

Only the most naive or deceitful would suggest that voting for a huge spending bill to keep the government from shutting down means you are voting for every single thing in the legislation. After Bernie (and other Democrats) discovered the manipulation, he championed the fight against the CFMA, including later getting the “Enron Loophole” removed and trying (unsuccessfully) to block Goldman Sachs’ Gary Gensler from securing an Obama appointment to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

What does Hillary do instead? She hires the $60-million Gary Gensler to advise her campaign and help her with debate prep. No doubt he and his ilk are on her short list for Treasury Secretary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/25/1475088/-Hillary-s-Latest-Dirty-Trick-Outrages-Even-Kumbaya-Progressive-Thom-Hartmann

[highprincipleswork]

1. I agree. There's no there there that I would support, not on the substantial issues of the day.

[LeFleur1]

65. Actually

Your list is false, but you knew that.

[JDPriestly]

92. What is false about the list????

If you support Hillary, tell us why? No one seems to be able to explain their support for Hillary in the way the OP explains the author's support for Bernie.

[Plucketeer]

282. I know! I know! I know why that list is false!

It's false (as in irrelevant) because it's HER TURN.

See how easy that is???

[Bubzer]

97. Actually, it's not...but you knew that.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

[Live and Learn]

159. You think that list is false? Not only is it true but it is just a partial list. nt

[Cal33]

187. Hartmann's list is repeated below. You say it is false. Please go over each, item by item, and

give your version of what you think is the truth. Thanks.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511296941

[Old Crow]

238. You will never, and I mean NEVER, get a response to your request.

That was nothing but drive-by snark. The poster has no interest whatsoever in having a meaningful discussion or shedding light on anything whatsoever.

[scottie55]

242. Tunnelvision

EOM

[rhett o rick]

243. And that's as substantive as a Clinton support ever gets when discussing issues.

What I say is that the Clintons amassing over $100,000,000 in less than 15 years all from big corporations and billionaires is the epitome of the corrupt culture we are fighting.

You get to choose to help the 16,000,000 children living in poverty or helping the Clinton family get more millions and millions.

[haydukelives]

249. the list looks true to me

Forgot to add:
Voted for bankruptcy bill as a senator after lobbying against it as first lady.
For the life of me I can't figure that one out.

[EdwardBernays]

2. What Bernie supporters fail to see

Is that yes, that is who they want.

It they'll vote for her no matter her polices based purely on racial or secure politics grounds.

They often are happy to admit she's dishonest and corrupt and just can't be bothered.

[shenmue]

6. Try again

[Robbins]

9. they don't care

as long as clinton is nominee they care nothing about her policies

[earthside]

30. It is all about this:

Period.

If you question Hillary on the issues you are just being a hater.

It is all about HER.

[dchill]

32. It's a freakin' cult.

Of personality.

[CorkySt.Clair]

49. The same could be said for Bernie supporters

[dchill]

54. Sure, except it wouldn't be true.

[dreamnightwind]

72. No, many of us were Warren supporters

It is about a set of issues that are always off the table for corporate-owned politicians, not about Bernie's personality.

[nolabels]

80. Yea, I guess you are right, i wouldn't feel good about giving secret speeches either

No wonder i also like the guy who would rather do his own laundry


As matter of fact, since i don't need someone to do my laundry and don't need dry cleaning since i also like being blue-collar i can easily afford to send Bernie another donation. Thanks for talking me into it

[JDPriestly]

99. No. The same cannot be said of Bernie supporters.

Ask a Bernie supporter why they support Bernie and you will hear a list of stands of the ISSUES.

It isn't about Bernie. It isn't because he is a man. And while we think he can win, and while the polls show he can win, in the General Election and is more likely to win then than Hillary, it isn't because he can win.

It's because he is right on the ISSUES. We support Bernie because he believes in democracy. We support him because his stands on the issues all grow out of his strong faith, his strong belief in democracy.

Hillary -- not. She is all about I, I, I, I, I, I, == all about Hillary.

Bernie is all about we, we, we, we, we, we, we, the American people == not about Bernie but about America.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

103. No, Kucinich supporters....

I think he had Hobbit feet.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

127. I could give a rats ass about Bernies personality

Policies are what I care about. Evidently not important to Hillary lovers.

[freebrew]

275. As if Hillary's personality is sooo charming...

Monotonic shouting every speech.

Sorry! I'll vote for someone that will try to improve this nation.
Not more cuts for the people.

Bernie!

[Fuddnik]

56. Church of Clintontology.

[SammyWinstonJack]

255. Ha! Nice one!

[gyroscope]

42. It's all about electing the first female president

because it's Hillary's turn!

[Dragonfli]

261. "it's all about her" true, and of course her becoming a multimillionaire

An interesting combination of narcissism and greed.

[earthside]

273. Excellent graphic.

Can I re-use it?

That really says it all in one clear image.

[Dragonfli]

288. Sure, I spent a great deal of time on it, I hope someone uses it. /nt

[sammythecat]

286. And if "her" was "him"

we wouldn't even be having this discussion because "him" would have been out of the race a long, long, time ago, and rightfully so.

[Tommy2Tone]

27. I am a Hillary supporter

and everything you said is a lie. You can talk of you reasons but don't presume to talk of mine.

[earthside]

33. Touché.

There it is.

" ... everything you said is a lie."

What more proof do you need?
It is all and just about HER.

[Bubzer]

57. Proof in the puding, as it were.

[glinda]

106. That is scary that facts are rarely mentioned in defending her. Why is that?

[Bubzer]

111. Because its all about perception. Nevermind the actual history, hidden behind the curtain...

... just look at the pretty lies we've trotted out for you to see!

[AzDar]

38. *What*, specifically... is a " lie " ?

[EdwardBernays]

39. Not every one

But the majority I've spoken to on here.

They openly have admitted she's corrupt ("they're all corrupt so I don't care about that&quot or that they're only voting for her because she has more black staffers than Bernie, etc.

You should talk to your fellow Clintonites... Because what I've said is true for MANY of them.

Here's a good example:

[desmiller]

58. It's hard to wake people up from this type of "hypnosis"

Loving the candidate more than their own interest is extremely deadly.

[EdwardBernays]

64. absolutely...

And honestly... the way that they're all embracing her the worse she gets is disturbing... not a single one of her supporters that I've seen has called her out for any of the garbage she's pulled in this campaign... instead they try and bring Bernie DOWN TO HER LEVEL.

They know she can't compete and instead try and make us think our candidate is crap, just like theirs... so awful.

[hifiguy]

126. She could co-host a kitten barbecue/puppy shoot

with Dick Cheney and not one of the Fan Club would even blink an eye. It would be the Best Thing Ever. Jebus, that is frightening.

[EdwardBernays]

129. yep

and if anyone complained they'd label a right-wing smear.

[Enthusiast]

145. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[scottie55]

244. What Is It Trump Said About 5th Ave

I see the same thing here.

Blind

Following

To hell with issues, lies, distortions, history etc.

[SammyWinstonJack]

256. Ouch!

[Tommy2Tone]

190. You just proved bravenak's point.

You read but don't comprehend. You are so filled with Sanders perfume your mind can't conceive of people having a different point of view. Then you spend your time here with others of your mind set so you have not a clue what we think or why we will vote for Hillary. To you Sanders is pure and all others are evildoers. When Sanders loses and he will you will move on to the next lost cause.

[EdwardBernays]

205. Nonsense

If you're point of view is "I'll vote for a corrupt candidate because they've hired more black staffers than their opponent" than that's literally not a point of view worth acknowledging. As it's racist. And self-destructive.

I don't have to think all things are created equal. And when something like that, which is just apolitical prejudice is used to justify a vote I'd call it out. And I did at the time. And am now.

[John Poet]

234. We will "move on to the Next Lost Cause"?

I presume you mean Hillary in the General Election.

[haydukelives]

250. LOL

Yep

[Tommy2Tone]

271. Why would you vote for Hillary

To you guys Trump or Rubio are no worse.

[John Poet]

292. Between the devil and the devil's bride,

who is 'the lessor evil' ?


BTW-- not good salesmanship on your part.

[mikehiggins]

259. I can conceive of people having a differant point of view. I cannot understand people

who can ignore the evidence of their own eyes because of a belief in a person.

The article tracing the history of the bill HRC blasted Sanders for voting for and the fact that the Goldman Sachs guy who originated the part that benefited his firm AND which was slid into the budget bill after failing to be voted for on its own AND the fact that President CLinton signed the bill AND the fact that he is now the Finance Director of her campaign are all traceable facts.

They are either true or not. My problem with posts like yours is that they simply ignore the facts, just like they ignore any number of other flaws with the Anointed One.

Secretary CLinton said today that people have trouble figuring out whether she is running to help them or to help herself. The problem is so many people have decided on an answer to that, and the debate is not turning out well for her.

We'll see all of you people in Philadelphia.

[concreteblue]

278. You, and the Hillary supporters of which you appear to be, are proving the point.

To wit:
" You are so filled with Sanders perfume your mind can't conceive of people having a different point of view. "
Bernie supporters understand perfectly you have a different point of view, and welcome you to it. What is not understood is what it is based on, and you and others like you cannot answer that question.
" To you Sanders is pure and all others are evildoers."
You, and again, Hillary supporters in general, are the only one saying that "Bernie is pure".
He may well be, but No Sanders supporter I know claims that.

" When Sanders loses and he will you will move on to the next lost cause. "
I will happily move on to the "next lost cause" if it is returning our Republic to The People. What did you get for your soul?

[libdem4life]

293. So, why are you voting for Hillary? Oh, and ALL OTHERS are not evildoers. Good lord almighty.

Please run off a list, similar to the one that you are so ineloquently dissing, of Hillary's positions...at least the current ones. I don't believe you can.

Oh, and that comprehension garbage and "perfume"...that's a new one...they are called ISSUES...not a personality cult. I'd support anyone with those issues...and have my entire Democratic life...just no one came close to this list.

No cause is lost when one feels strongly...perhaps delayed, but never lost. I'm a lost cause to the Republicans. I'm a lost cause to War Hawks and have been for 40 years. Did all our Wars of Convenience sway me in any way? Not one inch. There are principles...you don't get them or change them often, if at all.

[JDPriestly]

112. OK. Then what are your reasons for preferring Hillary?

Please list them. Because any Bernie supporter will give you a long, long list of issues and reasons for supporting Bernie.

But the Hillary supporters do not do this.

Do you really think that saddling our young people with personal debt in the many, many thousands is a good way for our country to educate them in this 21st century?

Do you really think that a no-fly zone and specialists in Syria will help end the strife in the Middle East?

Do you really think that single payer health insurance is a no-go. Think about the homeless people and the uninsured in so many states who have serious health problems that cannot be dealt with (addiction being a big one) with the band-aid of Medicaid and hospital emergency room care. Then think again.

Do you really think that Hillary's taking millions from the billionaires prepares her to take on the campaign finance issue?

Do you really think that Hillary is going to make it through to November without some huge possibly bogus question about her selling favors for donations or pay either to herself or her foundation becoming an issue (however false or true -- makes no difference if it plants doubt in voters minds)?

Do you really think that Hillary as president will be able to work with Republicans in Congress? (If you do, I have a bridge to sell.)

Please explain what it is about Hillary that makes you prefer her to Bernie.

[bvar22]

212. Hillary will never be President.

All the Hillary supporters have done is to ensure a Republican President in 2016.

[Old Codger]

114. MY MY MY

Now aren't you "special"

[gregcrawford]

156. Tommy, Tommy, Tommy...

... it is ALL a matter of historical record. See, they got these sound and picture recording devices... Ah, forget it. You can't sway religious fanatics, flat earthers, or Hillary supporters. Facts are anathema to all of them.

[hifiguy]

193. "You can't sway religious fanatics, flat earthers, or Hillary supporters. Facts are anathema to all.

That, sir, is pithy, elegant, and impeccably accurate.

And one other thing is certain - when she tanks horribly in the GE, we Sanders supporters will be blamed.

[Yuugal]

251. This time we will be taking credit.

And they will know to be careful next time or they will lose again. It is high time.

[SammyWinstonJack]

257. +1000000

You can't sway religious fanatics, flat earthers, or Hillary supporters. Facts are anathema to all of them

[Phlem]

169. Thanks for the undeniable confirmation.

[bvar22]

211. Would you care to point out the LIES, and document the truth?

...didn't think so.
That would be a loser for you.

[CentralMass]

60. Yet the her policies are not good for poc.

[EdwardBernays]

68. And if you try and explain this to them

they'll angrily tell you not to lecture them... or try and teach them...

It's so self-destructive...

I don't know everything and am attracted to learning new things... ignorance isn't bliss and I KNOW some people know a LOT more than me... instead of rejecting information out of hand I reserve judgement until I CHECK THE INFORMATION...

But it's not a POC thing, it's a Clintonite thing... they all just are fighting for making their situation worse - and eventually losing to Trump... or worse.

[grasswire]

227. excellent point. She makes her PoC supporters look bad.

In many ways.

[tk2kewl]

3. but Bernie bros

[Bubzer]

59. SHHHHHHH....Maddie has sensitive ears!!!

[pandr32]

4. I am shocked to see these mischaracterizations on DU

I am also shocked that any Democrat would be pushing this stuff. Everything is deliberately over generalized or completely misrepresented. Why not change your focus and start looking ahead to supporting our Democrat nominee in the GE. It is almost a certainty that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and there won't be much time left to put the shoe on the other foot and help our nominee win the White House and down-ticket Dems to win their seats.
Best get started.

[Lorien]

5. Tell us exactly what is "misrepresented", with links

You Hillary supporters only seem to care about winning the nomination. You CANNOT win the general election. Not a chance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/18/1487044/-Qunnipiac-National-Poll-Bernie-beats-all-Republicans-Hillary-loses-to-all

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/266086-gop-chairman-would-rather-face-clinton-than-sanders

[erlewyne]

13. Please be more sympathetic to HRC.

The truth hurts.

[desmiller]

45. Karma hurts more

[Bubzer]

71. Sympathetic to HRC? Are you serious? Why would I be more sympathetic to the establishment candidate?

Especially when she sets out to marginalize progressive goals and values?

Yes, truth hurts...and the truth is HRC has earned the distrust of the majority of Americans.

No, she'll get zero sympathy from me... I'm decidedly non-sympathetic to GoldmancSachs-owned candidates.

[erlewyne]

220. Hillary is on a different planet.

She keeps doing the same thing expecting different results.

I agree with your reply.

[Bubzer]

221. Ahh... thought you were comming to her defense... sorry about that.

[JRLeft]

74. You won't get a response.

[shenmue]

7. Sanders supporters aren't Democratic loyalists

They're Independents who came in because they and their candidate don't like the party.

[Impedimentus]

26. I'm not an independent ...

... been a lifelong Democratic for over 50 years and I support Bernie Sanders. I think your statement is an over generalization.

Oh, and I like cats and donate regularly to cat shelters and feral cat charity organizations. See, we aren't all bad people.

[JRLeft]

76. I have to, but I'm going independent.

[scottie55]

246. I Was An Obama Delegate

Not loyal to the party?

I am loyal to my ideals.

If "my party" serves Wall Street instead of me what am I supposed to do?

Hold my nose?

I think not.

[JRLeft]

247. I hope I'm wrong but the democratic party may be a lost cause.

[MJJP21]

43. Whats to like?

Hillary started out as a "Goldwater Girl" in her youth. Thats right she was a Barry Goldwater supporter. She hasn't strayed far from her original positions. She doesn't support one position that matters to the man on the street. Bernie isn't offering something new. He is offering a chance to get back what we once had.

[uberblonde]

232. What is it with this absurd meme?

She was a Goldwater Girl in high school. She was 17.

By the time she was 18, she was a McGovern volunteer.

Are you so desperate to smear her that you have to dredge up her teenage years? You look silly.

[Petrushka]

245. In high school? She was a junior in college when she decided to support McGovern.

Born in 1947, she would have been 18 in 1965. Her McGovern days began in 1968, at the age of 20 or 21. She reportedly told her youth minister she'd changed her mind about the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war, deciding she had a conservative mind but a liberal heart.

In any case: It's amusing to note that someone pointed out how HRC's campaign logo is reminiscent of Goldwater's --->

. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/21/1488674/-HRC-s-Logo-just-like-Goldwater-s-She-sealed-her-thesis-at-Wellesley-another-thing-she-is-hiding

[droidamus2]

51. Wrong

I have been a Democrat for 44 years and I am a strong Bernie supporter.

[Autumn]

69. Over 40 years a registered Democrat, never missed an election always voted a straight

Democratic ticket. I'm not an Independent but you're right about one thing I don't care for the Democratic party. When Jamie Dimon was whipping votes on the senate floor at Obama's behest I went to the DMV and changed to Unaffiliated. When Bernie announced I switched back to democrat so i can caucus for him. After Bernie, win or lose I will step back out of your tent and never look back.

[The Second Stone]

177. Ain't that the truth

You don't like our party anymore, quit, found a guy who can destroy it from within, rejoined to do just that, and will be out of here immediately after that fails.

There are those of us who are in it for the long run. We are tired of the Naderites, and the Berniebros.

The law allows you to register and destroy from within any party you wish. That doesn't mean we can't call you on it.

[Autumn]

180. Bernie isn't destroying the party, neither are his supporters. The law allows anyone to run for

President if they meet certain qualifications. The democratic party welcomed Bernie to run as a democrat.

[The Second Stone]

191. That's a matter of opinion

and you and I disagree on that.

[Autumn]

195. No, that's a fact. Anyone is entitled to run for President in any party if they meet the

legal requirements .

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/elections/candid.html

Requirements for President of the United States

Qualifications for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. These requirements do not prohibit a woman from being president, yet this has yet to occur. What "unwritten" perceptions of presidential candidates have prevented this? Do you think these perceptions will change? What might cause such a change? When might it occur?

What Makes a Candidate Run?
Most candidates, past and present, have fought hard for their party's nomination. Today, many politicians make this their life's work as they move from city, to state, to national office. This has not always been the case

Many people don't know that our country's first presidential candidate, George Washington, was reluctant to accept the office. "I cannot describe, the painful emotions which I felt in being called upon to determine whether I would accept or refuse the Presidency of the United States," Washington revealed in a 1789 speech. Washington had fully intended to retire to Mount Vernon when the Constitutional Convention was over. But Washington's sense of duty to his new country outweighed his desire to withdraw from public life.

Washington was not the only candidate to feel reluctant about the presidency. James K. Polk accepted the Democratic party's nomination as a duty "neither...sought nor declined." Do we hear candidates speak of "duty," as a motivating factor in their candidacy, today? Do you think today's presidential campaigns are more often characterized by desire to act on a "sense of duty" or by desire to achieve personal or political ambition?

[The Second Stone]

204. I was referring to your claim that the party welcomed him

even you don't claim that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017315577

In this thread you claim quite the opposite. You do know how this internet thing works, right? Everything you write is saved forever.

And you and Sen. Sanders are destroying the party you left.

Now, check out my posting history, and you will see that, I used to be a whole lot nicer to the Sanders supporters and to Sanders. Since then I learned different things.

Sanders has always been an opponent of the Democratic Party in elections, and only affiliates in Congress for the privileges it gets his constituents and himself. Only last year did he for the first time in his life join the party, having been a member of various socialist parties until then. His supporters? More interested in tearing down the party we built than getting a Democrat elected. They are pretty clear that they won't vote for the party nominee unless it is Sanders. I'll vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, but I've changed my mind about working for him and support. I couldn't work with the Berniebros, and I'll be holding my nose if the choice is between him and a Republican in November. Sanders is only slightly more palatable than Nader.

Sanders may think he is building the party, or moving the party, but many of his supporters are destroying it.

[Autumn]

208. Well you did find my name and a few of my posts but I fail to see what those have to do with this.

Bernie is running as a democrat in the democratic party. He has caucused with the democrats for years and has been a reliable vote on their side. They welcomed him to run in the democratic party, if they hadn't he wouldn't be running. So the rest is all nonsense. You have a nice day

[johnlucas]

240. This party sucks & Bernie will repair it.

Why does the Republican Party have so much influence in the viewpoints & policies of this country?
It's because the Democratic Party is WEAK, that's why.
Screw the party if it's not doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Bernie Sanders can make the Democratic Party strong again.
Strong enough to wipe out Republican/"Conservative" propaganda.
Strong enough to reverse the tide of gerrymandering.
Strong enough to turn Texas into a solid Democratic state for Presidential elections.

If the Democratic Party has no principles driving it, then it's an empty shell.
We're putting the meat back into that shell with Bernie.

Obama was supposed to do this but he didn't get it done.
That's why 2010 & 2014 happened.
With Bernie you won't have to worry about those midterm defeats anymore.

Yeah the Democratic Party in its current form needs to be destroyed.
Then it can be rebuilt from the ground up into a better form that guarantees the permanent destruction of the Republican Party.

Quit Rah-Rah Cheerleadering for the Party at all costs DEMOCRATIC ones.
The UNDERGROUND is about revive the Principles even if we have to do it Lone Wolf style.

Hillary will not see the nomination.
The Third Way is DEAD.
A new era for the Democratic Party starts NOW.

Bernie Sanders, the 45th President of the United States of America.
John Lucas

[The Second Stone]

252. Those of us who worked hard to build the party

don't want to destroy it because the tent is too big.

[Art_from_Ark]

260. Build the party into what, exactly?

An organization that is losing membership?
An organization that that has been losing governorships and state legislatures at an alarming rate?
A "big tent" organization where conservatives seem to be more welcome than liberals?

[johnlucas]

291. If the Democratic Party can't put up decent opposition to the Republican Party, it needs an overhaul

I feel what you're saying.
You guys have put in so much with this political organization.
You see changes as obliteration.

It's something I have come to appreciate since being on this forum.
The DEMOCRATIC vs. The UNDERGROUND.
I say it time & time again on this board.
There's a difference between the types of people under the Democratic Party banner.
And I use the title name of this forum to signify that difference.
Both need each other to win & both have their strengths & weaknesses.
Let me explain.

The ones I call The DEMOCRATIC are Rah-Rah Cheerleaders who have the sheer numbers & the teamwork that operate a political body.
These are the folks who are Team Democrat Do Or Die & build the Democratic Party with their ability to stack-up & work together for the team effort.
You'll see them go "hooray!" at pics of the First Family & feel good about Democratic Party icons.
You NEED these type of people to build a political machine.
The Cheerleaders are important.

BUT the weakness of the DEMOCRATIC ones is that they don't question the machine.
They don't question the Party because they're too consumed with the team effort.
When the Party IS questioned or criticized, the DEMOCRATIC Cheerleaders boo, hiss, shout down, & shut down all criticism.
If you're not committed to the team effort, the Cheerleaders want you to get off the team.
This will lead them to going off a cliff if the Democratic Party machine is driving the wrong way.

The ones I call The UNDERGROUND are Lone Wolf Idealists who keep the principles & core tenets a political body needs to fuel its cause.
These are the folks who hold Principle Over Party & remind you what the whole reason the Democratic Party was built for in the first place.
You'll see them call out shortcomings, inconsistencies, failings of the Party Members/Structure & make criticism on how the Democratic Party can be better for the future.
You NEED these type of people to keep the political machine from going off track.
The Lone Wolves are important.

BUT the weakness of the UNDERGROUND ones is that they are TOO individualistic & contrary to team efforts.
They can break down one by one each futilely trying to achieve their unique vision of the same goal.
When they splinter up, the UNDERGROUND Lone Wolves will botch the entire goal doggedly looking for 100% Purity or nothing.
If you're not perfectly in line with each particular vision, the Lone Wolves will growl because you can't see what they see.
This will lead them to howling at the moon into irrelevance as the Democratic Party machine is grounded in its tracks.

I would call you one of the DEMOCRATIC.
I am one of the UNDERGROUND.
And all of my life I have seen a WEAK WEAK WEAK Democratic Party.
The framing of issues is ALWAYS done in a Republican point of view.
Most of the country actually wants Progressive/Liberal legislation passed.
But half of the country refuses to associate with the Democratic Party which supposedly champions this type of legislation.

The Republican Party has been putting up a clown show for I don't know HOW many elections.
The Republican Party should be extinct right now seeing the kind of insanity they put out.
But somehow they still have a major portion of the country following them.
It really shouldn't be that hard to defeat that incompetent political faction...
...unless the Democratic Party doesn't have the bite necessary to run that opposition into the graveyard.

The Republican Party & the "Conservative" Movement they house is PISSWATER.
They're not formidable opponents. They're assclowns. They're pushovers.
All we have to do is push those clowns over. It's not hard.
But the Democrats have been running scared for so long they really don't know how to fight anymore.

There's no fire in the Democratic Party as a whole.
Bernie Sanders will restore that fire.
A bully won't know what to do when you punch him in the face.
The Democratic Party has been bullied by the Republican Party for decades now.
Punch that sucker BACK! And rub it in his face when you do it.

You can STILL be a Democrat after Bernie revives the power of this party.
That Lone Wolf will growl & howl until that machine jumps back on track.
And then the Cheerleaders will have something worth teaming up for.

If you want a Democratic Party who takes no guff & will push the Progressive/Liberal plans through the opposition, you need Bernie Sanders as your nominee.
His election will strengthen the state races & local races.
Soon you will have a new narrative that the entire country will speak from.
And it will be a Progressive one not a Regressive one.

Don't weep for the changing of this party.
It's a renovation not a store closing.
John Lucas

[sulphurdunn]

70. Political parties are instruments of collective will.

They are not sports teams. Anyone who has blind loyalty to a political party is a sucker.

[Fuddnik]

73. Lets see.

I registered as a Democrat in 1972. I worked on local and national campaigns, managed congressional campaigns, even ran for Congress in 2004. All as a Democrat. Never supported a Republican in my life. Never will.

I left the party, and became "Independent" in 2007, after Democrats kept reneging on campaign promises, and supported policies I didn't like.

I came back just so I could vote for Bernie in the primary. I dropped off my absentee a week ago. I'm sticking around until August, so I can vote for Alan Grayson in the primary.

No Hillary. No How. No Way!

Her and her ilk are the reason I left the party in the first place.

[maddiemom]

274. Bernie? Yes, I agree! BUT: Trump over Hillary? No. Rubio over Hillary? No.

Cruz over Hillary (talk about Goldman Sachs)? A Million Times NO!

[Bubzer]

75. What utter garbage.

Your opinion is not factual. Link some evidence.

[LovingA2andMI]

83. #FYI.....

No election can be won without Independents and Hillary's Campaign shenanigans are turning off that vote for the General Election -- and it will not be coming back.

[KamaAina]

194. "The people don't want a phony Democrat."

"If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat..." -Harry S Truman

[NurseJackie]

108. Truth.

[Hissyspit]

134. Um, not me.

[pangaia]

154. Bernie stands for old Democratic values,

before Bill Clinton and Hillary moved the party so far to the right.

Hillary is now what was once considered a Republican.

So no. We Bernie supporters are Democrats who FINALLY have a REAL Democrat running for president.

[hifiguy]

196. The one and only thing ANY Clinton has ever stood for

is his or her own advancement by any means available. The question of whether the available means are fair or foul never enters the discussion. They remind me to a remarkable degree of a politician I watched for years. Fella named Richard Nixon.

[KamaAina]

197. The Dem party followed the repukes to the right

It filled the void in the center left when the repukes went batshit crazy. Great for soaking up corporate ca$h. For representing the people? Not so much.

[bvar22]

213. Yes.

The Clintons and their cronies "The Centrists" chased the Republicans FAR to the conservative Right.
Obama followed in their ruts.

The BIG problem with moving so far to the Right is that it has left a BIG Vacuum on The FDR Left.
Vacuums are filled.
It is Physics....and Politics.
Beware.

[hifiguy]

199. It is to laugh.

My first vote for President was for Jimmy Carter. I went out and banged on doors for him for a month.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. I *was* a loyalist. Like the frog whose water is raised to a boil...

... I didn't notice what was becoming of my party until the Sanders campaign reminded me of what it was once like.

I'm not hopping back into that boiling water. Fix the party - I'm fine.

[Bubzer]

248. +1

[grasswire]

228. That is an ignorant statement.

You might want to self delete.

[Peace Patriot]

254. 70 yr old woman here, cradle Democrat who has voted for Democrats and..

...supported Democrats all my long life, starting with volunteering for the JFK campaign when I was 16 yrs old, before I could even vote!

I support Bernie Sanders. He is the new FDR we have needed for four decades.

Hillary is as corrupt as she can be. She has taken huge amounts of money from the biggest, most corrupt corporations in the world. She will betray her supporters--women, African-Americans, Latinos, labor union members & other workers, and everybody else who has been fooled into believing she is a liberal, without looking back. You won't know what hit you, as she slams the door on all meaningful reform. She is a Corporatist with a capital K. She is also a militarist and a military profiteer.

But this year we have a choice--a candidate with an entirely clean record and a lifetime of supporting social and economic justice, and opposing all the forms of corruption which are destroying our country, and who not only has huge "trust" numbers in national polls, but also beats all Republicans in national polls, while Clinton has stinko "trust" numbers and loses to them!

It couldn't be clearer what we should do.

[peacebird]

277. Well said! Agree completely!

[davidthegnome]

279. Sorry, no.

I come from a family of fanatic, life-long democrats - and all of us are supporting Bernie in the primaries. I'm probably more liberal than the rest of my family, but, again, life-long democrat. That said, the democratic party is not a single machine, it is not as if all of the members are decent, useful, or even terribly democratic. There are democrats - and there are democrats. So far, what I've seen from Sanders is far more democratic than what I have seen from Clinton.

No, I'm not crazy about the way the party has behaved in recent years (with the exception of some of it's members, who I think are pretty awesome) but that doesn't make me any less a democrat.

You don't get to determine who is and who isn't with the party. It's a big tent - and if a lot of independents are now going to vote for Bernie, even going so far as to become registered democrats, I think that's great.

I am very much a democrat.

[cantbeserious]

21. Shocked - Why Is This Citizen Not Shocked - At Ones Shock

eom

[LibDemAlways]

24. Ok, please clarify what has been misrepresented here.

You cannot expect the millions who are opposed to Hillary's policies, which are stated succinctly in that graphic, to simply fall in line, hold their noses, and vote to uphold the status quo. Plus, she has a steamer trunk full of personal baggage, and there is no politician Republicans hate more. She'd have an extremely tough time of it in the general.

[Broward]

41. Yep, they're choosing her with eyes wide open.

They know the risks going in.

[LibDemAlways]

89. I don't think they fully understand the risks.

The corporate media is poised to turn on her once she receives the nod. She'll increase Republican turnout and she has no crossover appeal. For every voter who supports her because she is a woman, there's another who won't support her for the same reason. Unfortunately, the US has a long way to go before sexism ceases to be an issue. I can"t for the life of me imagine what her supporters are thinking. This is a trainwreck waiting to happen.

[LovingA2andMI]

78. Well maybe it's history for a Female to win the Democratic....

Nomination but -- will you accept the history if she loses the General to a Republican as litany of Bernie Supporters decide to just stay home.

It could happen and likely WILL happen -- the Bernie Supporters will just stay home. #FYI

[JDPriestly]

135. As I have said many times, I am a life-long Democrat. I wore an Adlai Stevenson pin to school

and I worked hard on the McGovern campaign and for campaigns after that when I was in the US.

I will vote for every Democrat on my ballot EXCEPT HILLARY.

She may think sincerely that once she is in office, she will not do favors for her donors, but if she does, she is wrong. All that money she has collected from rich people, all her social contacts with rich people, all that will affect where she stands on the issues.

You only need to hear her stands on issues like free tuition at state schools, single payer, the minimum wage, and military engagements to know that she is influenced in her views, strongly influenced by the interests of the wealthy people who give her money.

She will not make a good president. The Republicans hate her. She is not presidential material.

Would you have voted for her back when she said that marriage was a religious rite?

She was wrong about that. Marriage has like many English words, two meanings. It can refer to a religious rite, but it also refers to a legal relationship, a strictly legal relationship. It always has. She was downright, unequivocally wrong when she defined it solely as a religious rite.

She has been and is wrong about a lot of things including the free tuition for all students at state colleges and universities. She thinks rich kids should pay for their tuition. Well why should a rich kid who may have great differences with his wealthy father have to rely on his wealthy father to pay for his education? She is wrong about the idea of free tuition for qualified students for state colleges and universities.

She is also wrong about single payer. We have a huge addiction problem in our country. Addiction is a medical and psychological problem. Addicts need single payer.

Hillary is wrong on so many issues. Bernie is and always has been right on those same issues.

The War in Iraq is an excellent example.

Hillary was warned in an excellent conversation that was videotaped by Code Pink to vote no on the IWR. She voted yes. We know what happened after that. Listen to Bernie's statement before voting no on the IWR. That is the insight, the intelligence, the thoughtfulness that we need in the White House.

Feeling the Bern is not about Bernie's looks or personality. It is about his views on the issues. Bernie is not a fad. Bernie is a brilliant man with wise, calm, fair views on the issues.

Hillary is a phony candidate. She changes her opinion with the mob because she doesn't think things through in the first place.

And her accusation against Bernie about voting for the Commodities Futures Act is hypocritical since her very own husband signed that awful bill.

Feel the Bern!

Bernie supporters are about the issues. Hillary's supporters????? Who knows why they support her?

[hifiguy]

198. You speak for me, JDP.

I can't add anything to your wise and clearly stated thoughts.

[uberblonde]

233. You worked for McGovern, whose candidacy resulted in a bloodbath...

And yet you haven't learned a damned thing.

Oh well. You can't get much truth into a closed mind.

[strategery blunder]

266. Hillary reminds me a little bit of Kerry.

The 2004 election was the first presidential election year that I was old enough to vote. At the time I was disgustipated at how easily and readily the Democrats kowtowed to Bush. Not just on foreign policy, but domestic issues as well. I was a Howard Dean supporter.

Then the Dean Scream happened. Or rather, the "Dean Scream" happened. We were told endlessly that Kerry was the "strong" candidate, the war hero, the one who could defeat Bush. He was respectable and electable! Unfortunately, he was also a don't-rock-the-boat candidate who voted for IWR. By the time I got to vote in the primary (MO at the time), Kerry was all but a shoo-in for the nod.

I volunteered for Kerry and canvassed for him in STL in the general. But ultimately, where did the safe establishment candidate get us? Meh turnout (and don't blame me, I not only voted, I volunteered for the Dem). Another four years of Bush.

Moreover, Kerry and McGovern both ran against incumbents. This is an open election. Hillary is, like Kerry, the candidate of meh, for reasons that JDPriestly has already stated.

I think it's time to get over McGovern.

[pangaia]

141. - These are not mischaracterizations.

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

- "Everything is deliberately over generalized or completely misrepresented" No, it is not. No generalizations in that list.

- We ARE supporting our Democratic nominee.

- "shoe on the other foot?" Huh ? I think maybe you have your metaphors confused.

[SwampG8r]

268. You can say that again

[pangaia]

142. - These are not mischaracterizations.

- "Everything is deliberately over generalized or completely misrepresented" No, it is not. No generalizations in that list.

- We ARE supporting out Democratic nominee.

- "shoe on the other foot?" Huh ? I think maybe you have your metaphors confused.

[mdbl]

264. Do you really think Hillary will create a push for more Dems in the congress

Kinda like Bill did?

[Cassiopeia]

8. If I wanted any of those things I would be looking towards the Republican party.

If Hillary wins the primary, we get a conservative agenda no matter who wins.

[LittleGirl]

14. Spot ON! eom

[cantbeserious]

18. Right You Are - Once Again - BDS Rules - And Democrats Are Forced To Vote - Republican Lite

eom

[LibDemAlways]

202. This ^^^^

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bubzer.

[SidDithers]

11. ...

Sid

[panader0]

88. Your bright red quote from John Lennon (who would have been a Bernie supported)

about revolution is very disingenuous. The revolution Bernie is talking about is not the mass killing
of people. It is like what Bobby Seale said:
"Revolution is about the need to re-evolve political, economic and social justice and power back into the hands of the people, preferably through legislation and policies that make human sense. That's what revolution is about. Revolution is not about shootouts."

Bobby Seale

I believe you know this is true. So you are being very childish. Grow up Sid.

[Bubzer]

116. Sid never will. Well over half of the posts I see from him are laughing emoticons.

I see that as a sign of inability to refute arguments with any degree of reasonability...so naturally, like any good clintonite, sid resorts to derision.

[kjones]

128. Hmm, now Sanders supporters are claiming endorsements from the dead huh? eom

[Ferd Berfel]

12. K&R - It just dosen't make sense

unless you are part of the Oligarchy -, low information, or right wing.

[cantbeserious]

16. ^^^ This ^^^

eom

[cantbeserious]

15. This Citizen Is Appalled At What Passes For Politics In A Modern Democracy

eom

[gyroscope]

17. She opposes campaign finance reform

supports Citizens United, supports the drug war, supports expansion of private and public prisons,
supports TPP, supports for-profit diploma mills and expansion of student debt, supports tax cuts for the wealthy, opposes taxes on Wall Street, supports cluster bombs and mines, voted for the Iraq war, voted for Bush's Patriot Act twice, supports raising the defense budget and expanding the wars in the ME, etc.

And claims to be a progressive.

[NYC Liberal]

61. She absolutely is a progressive.

It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

• 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)
  
• Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  
• 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)
  
• Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 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)
  
• Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.

• Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
  
• Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
  
• Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
  
• Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  
• Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  
• Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
  
• Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
  
• Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
  
• Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
  
• Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
  
• Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
  
• Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)

Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.

If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

• Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  
• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
  
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
  
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
  
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
  
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
  
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
  
• Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
  
• Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
  
• Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
  
• Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

91. Facts aren't allowed on bullshit mountain.

Unicorns and rainbows are ok, but facts are downright dangerous here on bullshit mountain.

[Bubzer]

93. Congratulations! You've successfully avoided countering the aforementioned issues!

Please do try again... only instead of pasting random quotes from random sites, how about providing links to ALL of your citations instead of just one Hmmm?

[NYC Liberal]

100. There are as many links and citations in my post as in your OP.

And if you actually go to the link my post, you will find citations for EVERY one of those quotes.

Meanwhile, your OP consists of a graphic of quotes from YouTube video.

[Bubzer]

107. And yet you've STILL managed to successfully avoid countering the aforementioned issues!

golf-clap for you

[still_one]

110. How dare you come into a Hillary bashing thread and spew facts

[Bubzer]

118. More like, spew a bunch of information that fails to serve as a counter to the argument.

But, nice try.

[dlwickham]

183. Preach

[Herman4747]

272. While representing the state of NY, she behaved like a Democrat...

...and that seems to impress you. Of course, if she's going to eventually get the Democratic nomination for president later, then she would know she has to behave like a Democrat.
She has never "laid it on the line" in support of deeply held liberal principles. SHE WAS OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE UNTIL AT LEAST 2010, right? But then OTHERS were able to turn the tide, to switch the way the wind was blowing. So she decided to jump in, as maintaining her old position would now cost her votes in her goal to be President -- she can't have that.
She has never shown any ability to truly think "outside the box." While Bernie is striving hard to minimize the control Wall Street has over our country, Hillary is getting $200,000 plus to speak to her friends at Goldman Sachs.
What did the great FDR say about banksters? "I welcome their hatred!" And what does Hillary say? "I welcome their cash!"

[treestar]

19. I want to keep the ACA

and avoid wars that Rs would start and keep funding Planned Parenthood and keep the minimum wage rather than seeing it repealed. Reality is a funny thing. Your post presumes the existence of 0 Republicans. Like they've already gone the way of history.

[Armstead]

25. No the GOP has power because Democrats like Clinton give it to them

[treestar]

158. it's because people vote for them

in the local elections, the ones nobody cares about but Republicans.

[Broward]

47. People with this mindset have been running things for far too long in the Dem Party.

It's long past time for the Party to start playing offense.

[Bubzer]

124. Agreed

[treestar]

160. what mindset? That there are still Republicans in existence?

Reality mindset?

[Bubzer]

122. My post presumes nothing... that's your projection... nothing more.

I believe I can safely say no one on this board is under the illusion that anything worthwhile is going to be easy to get. That's not a good enough argument to not try!

Your argument, however, implies that nominating Bernie would somehow put funding for Planned Parenthood, or the minimum wage itself, at risk... which is patently absurd.

[treestar]

162. it would because a Republican President would repeal the ACA the first day

they already have the bill in place.

[Bubzer]

167. I reject your notion that nominating Bernie would lead to a republican president...

Especially with all evidence to the contrary. Who was it again that soundly defeats ALL the republican candidates in a match-up again... it wasn't hillary... hmmm... let me think...

[newthinking]

132. Avoid wars with HRC? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

She consorts with and hires interventionists FFS.


Victoria Nuland (Brought into power in the State Dept. by Hillary)



[font size=4]A Family Business of Perpetual War[/font]
March 20, 2015

Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (which doesn’t disclose details on its funders), used his prized perch on the Washington Post’s op-ed page on Friday to bait Republicans into abandoning the sequester caps limiting the Pentagon’s budget, which he calculated at about $523 billion (apparently not counting extra war spending). Kagan called on the GOP legislators to add at least $38 billion and preferably more like $54 billion to $117 billion:

Continued:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

[newthinking]

157. FP Mag: The Undiplomatic Diplomat

McCain and the hawks LOVE Clinton's Asst..

What other Neocons/Neoliberals will a new Clinton Administration bring (back) to power?




[font size=4]The Undiplomatic Diplomat[/font]
Russia hawks in Washington love Victoria Nuland, the State Department’s point person for the Ukraine crisis. Many Europeans can't stand her.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/18/the-undiplomatic-diplomat/

On a sweltering Tuesday afternoon in June, John McCain was working himself into a lather about the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis in Ukraine.

“It’s so shameful and disgraceful that it’s hard for me to restrain myself,” said the Arizona Republican, ticking off a list of perceived White House missteps.

He was just about to finish an analogy comparing Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain when a reporter interjected with a new question: What did the senator think about the top U.S. diplomat assigned to the conflict?

McCain paused, and his demeanor changed dramatically.

“I’m a great admirer of hers,” he said of Victoria Nuland, America’s most senior diplomat for Europe. “She’s very, very smart.”

McCain’s gushing approval of Nuland is shared by many on Capitol Hill, including large numbers of Democrats. But there’s one place where Nuland is far more polarizing: Europe, the very continent where her job requires her to cultivate strong and trusting relationships.

[treestar]

165. you're buying your own propaganda but I am not

Republicans like wars. Democrats avoid them where possible.

Did you hear the Republicans talking as if mere diplomacy was cowardly and all that? It's like Republicans don't exist. They did not like Obama getting an agreement with Iran. They want an excuse to invade.

If you can't acknowledged the differences between Republicans and Democrats and don't recognize Republicans exist, there's nothing that can get you to see reality as it is.

[YOHABLO]

263. It's just a glimpse into the 'inside Washington' country club. These folks don't give a

damn about the poor and working classes. They are there to make money for their friends and of course themselves. I can't help but think that the Clintons are part of that country club.

[stupidicus]

20. BAH! THat's nothing that a laughing emoticon defense/rebuttal can't overcome.

eom

[asuhornets]

22. Absolutely...n/t

[Broward]

23. They do, but not for all the same reasons.

Some are conservatives. Some are misinformed. Some are just trolls. This just highlights a few. There are surely other explanations.

[libodem]

28. Such a better Conservative

Than Trump or Crux. EOM

[JTFrog]

131. Yea, that's reality based.

[Faux pas]

29. All great questions

guess I should read the other posts here to see how they answer.

[dchill]

31. K&R

[felix_numinous]

34. You have to be willfully ignorant not to acknowledge

all of these issues. The blinders needed to look past all of these discrepancies must be painful.

[hifiguy]

35. It's her turn. Nothing else matters.

Not her neoliberal and neocon policies, not her corruption, nor her Nixonesque campaign tactics. Nothing.

[AzDar]

36. The mind boggles... no? She'll be destroyed in the GE.

[zentrum]

37. This is why they support her.

It's alarming and depressing.

It's why there's a kind of civil war brewing in the Democratic Party.

Just as there is in the Repub Party.

The question now is——who can defeat Trump?
I think it's Bernie and we are in grave danger with her as the nominee.

[pdsimdars]

40. Bubble thinking

They're just like the Republicans. They have their beliefs and completely ignore reality. Personality driven drivel.
Go, Bernie, Go!

[leftofcool]

44. LMAO

[Broward]

50. If you can't laugh at yourself...

[Bubzer]

133. +1

[Auggie]

46. Super delegates support her because she is of the same oligarchy ...

others are enamored with celebrity.

[NYC Liberal]

48. It's sad to see such blatant bullshit being peddled at DU.

I long for the days of unrec.

[Bohunk68]

84. If it is blatant bullshit,

then share the links proving such. Otherwise, it is all balderdash and wishful thinking.

[amborin]

52. She helped Write & widely promoted TPP which she would immediately pass

[amborin]

66. What TPP Means:

First: Hillary Clinton OWNS the TPP. She worked on drafting it, as Secretary of State.

She is the main person who wrote the TPP terms.

She was the main cheerleader for the TPP for years!

here is one of numerous examples of her promoting TPP:

In the fall of 2011, President Obama announced a shift in the United States’ strategic focus toward the Asia-Pacific region on military and economic matters. Inheriting a foreign policy predominantly fixated on the Middle East, the Obama administration set out on a renewed path to align current government resources with future priorities.

In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton penned a piece for Foreign Policy describing this regional policy as a “pivot point.”

Clinton further articulated interest in expanding economic liberalization through agreements such as the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

This re-balancing became a cornerstone for the Obama administration’s foreign policy objectives, and the principal economic and foreign policy component of the ‘pivot to Asia’ is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The TPP's MAIN BENEFICIARY IS WALL STREET!

The TPP permanently immunizes Wall Street from REGULATIONS.

This earlier post from DU explains:

TPP: Allows Wall Street to sue the government to gut financial and consumer protection regulations.

If you thought the recent bills passed in the house gutting Dodd Frank were bad, it's nothing compared to what the TPP will do to financial regulation.

Not only will it be gutted, but it will be gutted in such a way that prevents future congresses and presidents from ever reinstating it, because it means they can sue us in rigged ISDS tribunals to gut our regulations.

Don't take my word for it. From Elizabeth Warren:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/elizabeth-warren-trade-deal_n_6350312.html

This post from DU explains further:

Elwood P Dowd

Wall Street is responsible for TPP, and the point man for it came from Citigroup.

The USTR office that wrote TPP is infested with corporate lawyers and lobbyists. In this case, its former Citigroup executive Michael Froman who worked for Robert Rubin that's in charge. He was given a 4 million dollar bonus to take the job at USTR. TPP is all about making money and giving more power to Wall Street and their corporate business partners.

Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret

Citigroup is one of three Wall Street banks attempting to keep hidden their practice of paying executives multimillion-dollar awards for entering government service. In letters delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last month, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley seek exemption from a shareholder proposal, filed by the AFL-CIO labor coalition, which would force them to identify all executives eligible for these financial rewards, and the specific dollar amounts at stake. Critics argue these “golden parachutes” ensure more financial insiders in policy positions and favorable treatment toward Wall Street.

<snip>

Other banks’ policies are subtler. Banks often defer certain types of compensation in order to retain talent. When an executive terminates employment, unvested stock options and other forms of deferred compensation are usually forfeited. But several companies let executives’ equity options continue to vest if they leave for a government position, or allow them to keep retention bonuses that would otherwise be returned to the firm. A 2004 tax law banned accelerated payments but made an exemption for employees who leave for government service. Critics wonder whether the gifts are intended to fill the government with friendly faces who will act in their former employer’s interests.

“It fuels the revolving door between banks and the government,” said Michael Smallberg, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), whose 2013 report detailed these types of compensation agreements. The average executive branch salary is substantially less than these millions in awards, so the bonuses effectively supplement the lower pay, raising questions about who the government officials actually work for.

Citigroup is a serial user of these practices, if only because so many of its alumni serve in government. Jack Lew, Weiss’ boss at Treasury, had $250,000 to $500,000 in restricted stock vested after he left an executive position at the bank, part of a $1.1 million golden parachute revealed during the confirmation process. Stanley Fischer, currently the vice chair of the Federal Reserve, had a similar clause in his Citigroup employment contract. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman received over $4 million in multiple exit payments from Citigroup when he left for the Obama Administration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026854944

Here's what Peter de Fazio says:

Secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership Revealed

from:
Mortensen, Camilla. Eugene Weekly [Eugene, Or] 02 Jan 2014: N_A.



Hillary not only had major input into writing the TPP, but she has been its leading cheerleader:

As secretary of state in President Barack Obama's cabinet, Mrs. Clinton heaped praise on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation agreement that is one of Mr. Obama's top priorities.

In one speech, she said the pact would "lower trade barriers while raising standards, creating more and better growth."

from:

U.S. News: Clinton Walking Fine Line on Trade Deal

Nicholas, Peter . Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 23 Apr 2015: A.4.

Hillary Clinton, herself, wrote a piece in Foreign Policy journal advertising and praising and advocating for TPP:

America’s Pacific Century

The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.

• By Hillary Clinton
• October 11, 2011

We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific — developed and developing alike — into a single trading community.

Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of people’s lives — whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generation’s fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/

Do Hillary's promises of "strong protections for workers" mean anything?


NO, according to leading scholars of trade agreements, especially the TPP:


Scholars say that promises of worker protections are essentially an advertising gimmick:

The Myth of the Level Playing Field

Faux, Jeff. The American Prospect 23.3 (Apr 2012): 47-50.


The ILO conventions are specifically excluded from the U.S. draft of the TPP.

....According to the industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade, the proposal states that TPP countries "should take measures to reduce trade in products made through forced or child labor" and should apply their national worker protections to free-trade and export-processing zones.....

....Unfortunately, for many governments in less developed countries and investors in developed countries, exploiting labor is the point- cheap workers represent these nations' comparative advantage. As then-Peruvian President Alan Garcia told a cheering Chamber of Commerce the night that the U.S. -Peru trade deal was signed: "Come and open your factories in my country so we can sell your own products back to the U.S."

....If under these labor chapters, workers can still be intimidated, fired, or even murdered for trying to form a labor union, how effective can they be?" The answer is, hardly effective at all. Almost 20 years after NAFTA, companies violate Mexico's labor laws with impunity.........

Moreover, even the tiny improvement of the United States' TPP labor proposal over the Peru agreement will certainly be watered down in the negotiations. None of the other governments are enthusiastic. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore are hostile, and the inclusion of Vietnam, where unions are an arm of the government and labor oppression is rampant, and Brunei, which has a large number of mistreated foreign workers and is ruled by a 600-year-old autocratic sultanate, mocks the assumption that governments will take labor-protection rules seriously.

Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman assured Inside U.S. Trade in January that the Obama team would push for "a high standard labor agreement" but then suggested that labor protections were not that important because the benefits of free trade to American workers would go far beyond whatever the content of the labor chapter turned out to be.

What would TPP do?

Scholars say:

The offshoring of work will accelerate.

Vietnam-where wages are lower than China- will take from what little is left of the bottom end of U.S. manufacturing.

Malaysia and Singapore will pull from somewhat higher up the value-added ladder.

To keep their jobs, American industrial workers will take cuts in pay and see middle-class benefits like pensions and health care disappear.

The TPP will help accelerate the evolution of a two-tier wage system - whereby younger workers get hired for less- into three tiers and more.

Because labor markets are connected, the downward pressure in manufacturing wages will spread to other sectors as well, and from private to public employment.

Wage depression also will expand out to workers in the large, extended labor force in countries with which we already have free-trade agreements.

Among those dragged down in this quickening race to the bottom will be workers in Mexico, where lack of job opportunities is a major factor in the vicious internal drug wars that have already claimed some 50,000 lives in the last five years.

As hard times there get harder, social instability is bound to spill over our borders in some form.

Under pressure from public opinion and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton recently flip flopped on TPP, with weasel words.

But Hillary's past record speaks the truth. Hillary will pass TPP:

[Hoyt]

53. Let's just look at the first 3.

1. She supports universal healthcare and using the ACA to get there, rather than starting all over again and risking GOPers repealing ACA and issuing inadequate vouchers.

2. Dodd-Frank and the Volcker rule are as good as Glass-Steagal ever was, and she wants to go further because the entities GS regulated weren't the culprits in the the great recession and housing bubble.

3. She is for $12/hour nationally -- in the most rural areas -- adjusted upwards for higher cost areas. In fact, in San Francisco, New York, etc., it might be more than $15/hour.

I like here approach and pragmatism, not just wild promises pandering to gullible people.

[Zynx]

62. Yeah, apparently a 2/3s increase in the minimum wage under her is just nothing.

And the point about Glass-Steagall is such a good one. No one has created the causal link for how that led to the financial crisis. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank. It was a standalone investment bank. Other entities like Countrywide that helped fuel the crisis weren't even proper banks. AIG wasn't a bank of any kind.

[pinebox]

67. Uh

Sorry bro but the ACA is NOT nor ever will be universal health care. I wish you and your ilk would stop repeating this falsehood....sigh.

2...meh

3....That is her high number at $12. You use the word "might", people need a certainty. That is why Bernie's plan is better. Because he'll get probably that $12. Hillary would get probably

[Hoyt]

77. Why is that? If everyone gets covered, it is Universal Healthcare, bro. She'll get there faster

than Sanders ever could.

[pinebox]

79. Everyone won't be covered under the ACA ever

That's what you guys aren't understanding.
The way the ACA is set up it won't cover everybody. It's sad because I wish it did but it doesn't and won't. Millions will be uninsured under Hillary's plans because red states won't expand Medicaid & they are under no obligation to do so.

[Hoyt]

86. Let's see, if we get a public option, increased subsidies, expanded Medicaid in every state, etc.,

there is no reason everyone will not be covered. The ACA wasn't set up to do anything but get something through Congress because failure would have set us back another 20 years.

Adding a paragraph or two to the ACA to provide 100% subsidies to the poor, lower or no copays or deductibles for the poor, etc., is a lot easier than starting over.

[pinebox]

95. The problem is this---

It sounds easy but it isn't going to happen. I'd like to see it happen but one of the reason our costs is so high is because we have a for profit system. Until that changes, we will continue paying the highest cost for drugs in the world. Obama could have done more, he could have reversed the law Bush signed which outlawed Canadian pharmacies here in America but he never did.

Single payer would save us a lot of money. I like the ACA, it literally saved my life but as Harry Reid said, "the ACA is a step towards single payer".

[Hoyt]

113. I agree with Reid. When at least 42% of the country is opposed to single payer, why try

to shove it down their throats overnight. That has no chance of passing.

But, adding a Public Option does have some appeal I think. People who believe commercial insurance is better, can keep it. Those who want to try a public option -- like expanded Medicare -- can do that. if the public option is as good as we believe, people will gravitate toward it.

I agree that single payer is ultimately the best approach, but lots of people don't like the idea and there is no chance the current Congress, or anything conceivable in the next decade or two, would approve a mandatory Medicare-for-all. I know it would be cheaper, although not as cheap as Sanders says, and likely better from an outcomes perspective.

Clinton supports drug negotiations, but keep in mind that drugs only make up $300 Billion of of the $3 trillion we spend on health care. if we went to Canadian or British rates on drugs, we'd cut out about $70 Billion at best. Nothing to sneeze at, but it will not even pay for picking up the uninsured.

[crim son]

144. Wasn't this also the case with gay marriage?

Yet look where we are now. And gay marriage is not something that we all benefit from, but is a moral question. Never say never, because you'd be wrong.

[JonLeibowitz]

105. Bernie was attacked for "turning healthcare over to the Republican states",

and now you are claiming Hillary will expand Medicaid in every state?

Interesting.

[Hoyt]

117. I did not say every state. Some red states will still resist, although increased government incen-

tives will help reduce the number to just a few. The original ACA envisioned expanded Medicaid in every state.

I'm saying Clinton will get us to universal coverage faster than Sanders. There are a number of approaches that work.

What is really "interesting" to me are those who believe Sanders can impose Medicare-for-all on a significant portion of our population who are too stupid or philosophically opposed (kinder way of saying stupid) to it.

[JonLeibowitz]

121. So then definitionally she will not achieve universal healthcare.

Granted, Sanders was never going to get that passed anyway in the next 10-12 years. It's a longer-term goal, but at least he recognizes it as a goal whereas Clinton is actually opposed to it.

[Hoyt]

130. Nope, subsidies and public option can do the same thing as expanded Medicaid.

[questionseverything]

184. hc is not supporting a public option

never has

[Hoyt]

186. I think she is, but the primary is not the place to fight that issue. Save it for the GOPers.

[questionseverything]

189. i have read her white sheet on healthcare,nothing about a public option

the primary is the ONLY place to have this fight...we know darn well hc will never bite the insurance companies hand...the repubs and hc have no conflict on keeping the for profit model ingrained

no matter how many needlessly die

[dana_b]

120. "I like here approach and pragmatism, not just wild promises pandering to gullible people."

okay - I understand the pragmatic part, but don't you think that she's being just a BIT deceptive here regarding this whole thing? And some of her GULLIBLE supporters will eat up whatever she says! That's how I see it. Not trying to fight with you - there's too much of that here already. Btw - I do respect that you even spoke up on a thread like this.

Also, one more thing, Glass Steagall was much more restrictive than Dodd-Frank because it didn't leave in the loopholes that make it so difficult to enforce.

With Glass Steagall:"in 1933, commercial banks and their holding companies were forbidden to perform any activities defined as investment banking.

Conversely, investment banks were prohibited from accepting deposits or making loans like commercial banks.

Dodd Frank: Paul Volcker proposed that banks should be prohibited from taking excessive risks with their own money. His justification was that governments were likely to always bail out large, politically connected banks and that eventually good taxpayer money would be thrown after bad private money.

Even though Volcker publicly stated that these prohibitions would not have stopped the financial crisis in 2008, regulators used their subsequent political momentum to attach his proposal to the Dodd-Frank Act.
----------
Section 619 restricts proprietary trading in some circumstances and limits the relationship between banks and hedge funds. Types of restricted trades include derivatives, commodity futures and options.
Congress left language in Section 619 vague and has had difficulty enforcing the Volcker Rule.
several exceptions to the rule exist. The most notable exception is the allowance of trading in bank-owned U.S. Treasury bills/bonds or securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, these made up the majority of all proprietary trading before the Volcker rule was passed.

Read more: What is the difference between the Volcker Rule and the Glass-Steagall Act? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-difference-between-volcker-rule-and-glasssteagall-act.asp#ixzz40pbAesBY

So it sounds like Dodd Frank is very difficult to enforce. Elizabeth Warren has gone on record that this act has not done what they hoped that it would do. They (Wall Street/congress) keeps changing it and adding things like putting US back on the hook for THEIR f-ups.

[Hoyt]

125. Problem is, Glass-Steagall didn't/doesn't regulate the entities responsible for the melt down.

Clinton's proposal would regulate them, as well.

[dana_b]

147. I see

but how can they stop it from being torn to pieces like they (Repubs) have been doing and ultimately did with a chunk of Glass Steagall? That's going to be a huge problem for whomever becomes President.

The other thing is that I really feel that Hillary using this guy, Gensler, as one of her advisors is like putting a fox in charge of the hen house. Especially because of what he and President Clinton did with the omnibus bill in '99.

Well, good luck. Whatever happens I hope to hell that regulations are put into place and actually enforced. I REALLY hope that Clinton or Sanders has Warren on their cabinet!

And unless we get a more progressive Congress, most of this might be a mute point.

[Bubzer]

155. Umm...what? Glass-Steagall was exactly about regulating banks and securites that cause the depresion

The term Glass–Steagall Act usually refers to four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities, activities, and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms.[1] Congressional efforts to "repeal the Glass–Steagall Act" referred to those four provisions (and then usually to only the two provisions that restricted affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms [2]). Those efforts culminated in the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), which repealed the two provisions restricting affiliations between banks and securities firms.[3]

The Glass–Steagall Act also is used to refer to the entire Banking Act of 1933, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.[4] This article deals with only the four provisions separating commercial and investment banking. The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking. A separate 1932 law also known as the Glass–Steagall Act is described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932.

Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators interpreted provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[5] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the GLBA, many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already "dead."[6] Most notably, Citibank's 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board's then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[7] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[8]

Many commentators have stated that the GLBA's repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–08.[9][10][11] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.[12] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[13] Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[14]

much more at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation

[Hoyt]

163. GS didn't regulate AGI, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Chevrolet, Chrysler, etc.

[Bubzer]

171. Wrong. GS regulated ALL securities and ALL banks. Nice try. Why dont you go read up on it.

[Hoyt]

179. I think you are wrong. Let's see what others say.

"The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn’t have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we’re at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.

For that article, Sorkin contacted Sen. Elizabeth Warren - one of the big proponents of reinstating Glass Steagall - to get her reaction. In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=1


The last paragraph strikes me as funny. For example, Warren is still saying that the TPP won't be released until 4 years after enactment. Of course, almost anyone here should know that is has been release in it's entirety. Warren is still trying to make things simple for gullible people. it appears to have spilled over to those who don't believe Dodd-Frank, with the Volcker Rule, and Clinton's new proposals for entities not covered by GS, is far better than GS.

[Zynx]

55. The great bulk of those are without nuance or context.

To use an example, the flag desecration issue. In 2006 she voted against the flag desecration amendment, one of the 34 senators who did.

[PatrickforO]

63. She is corrupt past any real redemption. She doesn't give a shit about

any of us, our families or the issues we care about. Instead she wants to help the 1% suck off more of our wealth and income, because what the heck, we don't need it anyway!

[LibDemAlways]

98. The millions she's pocketed from corrupt

corporations and banksters tell me all I need to know about Hillary's priorities. Her interests have nothing to do with improving the lives of millions who are barely keeping their heads above water. Why on earth would I vote for her?

[Jed28]

164. And when the choice always seems to be reduced to the lesser of two evils...

We the people lose. No matter where we live.

http://billmoyers.com/story/sanders-and-trump-how-the-political-and-media-establishment-got-2016-so-wrong/

[dana_b]

81. I'm going on FB with this one

I know, I only have my little 150 friends but some of them are blissfully voting for Hillary and have no idea about this stuff. I will be respectful and just state the facts.

I am so tired of the deceipt from her campaign. I just cannot get it in my head how people can want this (the actions) for their President. This is the stuff that caused many of my friends to lose houses, lose jobs, and some have never recovered. Four more years of this could wipe us out.

[allinthegame]

82. So I take it

Trump or Rubio are an acceptable option?
Anyone who says they will not vote for her in the end will get worse.

[Thinkingabout]

85. Agreed

[LovingA2andMI]

96. Don't Blame The Voter...

Blame The DNC for Propping Up a Candidate to the Nomination THEY KNOW Fully Well Cannot Win The General Election.

It will be Hillary and the DNC fault, not voters -- if Republicans take the White House in 2016.

Voters and many of them have made it loud and clear -- they WANT BERNIE and not Hillary or the Establishment same ole, same ole.

[Bubzer]

146. As I told another poster; I dont accept the "Vote for hillary or else" premise.

[Skwmom]

87. These aren't the main issues with Clinton... In fact, they would appeal to some voters.

[JDPriestly]

90. K&R. In general, you can tell from the posts on DU that the thoughtful people, the people

who think analytically and thoughtfully -- critically -- are supporting Sanders.

The one-liner responses to thoughtful, complex questions about why in the world anyone would support Hillary and her substanceless platform tell the story.

Supporting Hillary is about something other than what we want our country to be. It is some strange thing that I have not been able to understand. It's just kind of vague.

Ask a Bernie supporter why he/she supports Bernie and then make yourself comfortable because the answer is likely to be long.

Ask a Hilary supporter why he/she supports Hillary and the answer will be something like - well, she can win or worse yet, she's a woman.

Thoughtful people support Bernie. That's why he will, in the end, win.

[Bubzer]

143. Or, for that matter, the ones who respond with just an emoticon laugh.

[amborin]

94. and there's this:

she won't support $15 per hour despite this:

CEOs of the nation’s largest corporations received a 16% pay raise in 2014, and the pay gap between CEOs and the typical worker widened to 373-to-1, according to the latest data from the AFL-CIO Executive PayWatch. Top executives of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index companies received, on average, $13.5 million in 2014, even as the average production and non-supervisory worker earned only $36,000 in annual salary in 2014.

As one of the most egregious examples of this type of inequality, mega-retailer Walmart is highlighted in this year's PayWatch. Doug McMillon, the company's CEO, earns $9,323 an hour. His starting employees get only $9 an hour,

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2015

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Corporate-Greed/Executive-PayWatch-2015-CEO-Pay-Continues-to-Skyrocket

[LiberalEsto]

101. And she supports H1-B visas nt

[OverBurn]

102. I love Bernie, but She's still a million times better than ANY republican candidate.

[Bubzer]

140. I dont accept your "Vote for hillary or else" premise.

[Bubzer]

218. You should know... you wrote it. Look to the link if you forgot.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511296941#post104
If you cannot figure it out from there, I wont be able to help you.

[Bubzer]

226. So you're really going to pretend you don't see the obvious implied comment?

Fine. I accept that you're not as politically savvy as I gave you credit for.

[randome]

109. 'They'? Is that like 'Those people?' How about 'we' meaning the people who are voting for her?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bubzer]

138. Simple... because Thom is not part of the group voting for hillary.

That makes them a "they"... it's not quite the otherizing effect that you're implying. That and using "we" is far too inclusive for anyone not voting for hillary.

[Chicago1980]

115. How about you just make sure you vote in November?

I'd rather have her in office over anyone with a (R) before their name.

[Bubzer]

137. How about you worry about your own vote eh?

My vote is my business and none yours.

[Chicago1980]

148. I'm not worried about my vote because I'm going to vote.

Sounds like I struck a little nerve

I also wasn't talking to you in particular, but just making a general comment.

So sensitive aren't you?

[Bubzer]

161. Glad you're going to vote. You should. Everyone should.

If you weren't talking to me in particular, you should work on your phrasing.

No more sensitive than you are. Have a good one.

[Bubzer]

217. Right... sure... malign Bernie supporters as acting like tea party...that'll win hearts and minds...

oh wait, no it wont.

[Bubzer]

231. *sigh* I'm done wasting time on you. Bye.

[MisterFred]

235. LOL

Pot, meet kettle.

[Tragl1]

119. Great post...

Really hits the nail on the head, all this being said. I feel if she becomes the nominee and the republicans do put up Trump as theirs, well I may have to vote for Clinton. But if it's an establishment Clinton vs establishment Rubio, I feel like I have no choice but to abstain. I can't in good conscious vote for that agenda. It's not what my values represent. I have faith Bernie will pull this out though, the force is strong with this one. Hey the Death Star took out a planet before Luke kicked it's ass so...

[NurseJackie]

123. Yawn. (And hiding thread.)

NE-E-EXT!

[Bubzer]

136. So long! Thanks for all the kicks!

[PatrynXX]

139. maybe 2 or 3 things on here I agree with her on but the rest is the reason

Bernie exists

[bhikkhu]

149. I'm a Sanders supporter, but that list is crap

Hillary has a very long history in working for and supporting healthcare reform. I think she knows more about the issue than anyone else running, and cares about it deeply. "Single payer" isn't one simple thing that just gets done or not, and advocating a different way forward is not equivalent to opposing universal healthcare.

The Dodd-Frank bill that Obama saw through is an improvement on Glass-Steagall. Bringing back an old outmoded bill would be a step backward, while allowing for the full implementation of Dodd-Frank would be a step forward, and more effective regulations could be better built upon it.

Every democrat supports a big increase in the minimum wage, but everyone differs on details. My state just passed the largest raise in minimum wage in the country, scaling it to the costs of living for different areas. Its a very smart and well-crafted approach, but one could say, looking at the statements strictly, "Sanders opposes this".

I'm not concerned with a candidate's position on death penalty, as it is primarily a state issue. The list of federal death penalty cases is extremely short.

Syria is a mess I don't think anyone has a good solution for. Obama has had many foreign policy successes, but Syria, objectively, has been a miserable failure. I don't have any special powers myself to know what will work in the future, so don't really have any standing to judge another's positions.

I'm not in favor of boycotting or sanctioning Israel.

I believe the current "hands-off" federal approach toward marijuana laws is the best approach. My state legalized last year, though local governments (including mine) have been allowed to opt out. Perceptions evolve, and it takes time; what people think is important, and treating that as important forces people to think about it, which is how perceptions evolve.

Hillary has a large-scale plan for debt-free college attendance, Its different from "free" college, but a good approach toward the same goal.

The welfare reform thing was ages ago. Imagining how history might be different if some past event had been done differently is more the job of novelists. A candidate's stand on issues moving forward is much more pertinent.

Technically, now she opposes fracking. My own position would be somewhere in between; once the technology is there being in favor or not is a non-issue, but effective regulation is the primary job of government.

I'm kind of worn out on the Patriot Act thing, the Bush era was awhile ago. I don't think its use under Obama has been a problem, and I'm not concerned it would be a problem under another Democratic president.

Hillary was heavily lobbied by veteran's groups to support the flag burning ban. I don't support it myself, but I can respect their perspective, and if I were personally heavily lobbied I can imagine changing my mind. In any case, its pretty much a dead issue now, and of little importance. The Big-enders vs Small-enders war comes to mind.

So...that's how I can support Clinton, in spite of all those "facts". I am voting for Sanders in the primary, but not against Hillary. I suppose some of this kind of debate is inevitable in a heated contest, but the rhetorical tactics here just remind me too much of the other side (you know, that other political party).

[dana_b]

152. regarding Dodd Frank, please see my response in post #120

that thing is so full of holes that Swiss Cheese is envious! It really is not a good bill.

[bhikkhu]

174. I know, it is in great need of improvement

implementation has been stalled or blocked, many good provisions have been blocked, and other good provisions were massaged into ineffectiveness by careful editing of the text. I still think its something to build on.

[greymouse]

170. the Patriot Act isn't a problem?

You like the spooks sniffing through all your communications?

[bhikkhu]

176. Honestly, that would be one tedious and unrewarding job

Growing up in a big family and raising a family, the idea of privacy has always been something of an abstraction - most things we do are done publicly, one way or another, and are knowable.

[certainot]

253. so go tell the republlcans to fuck off

[JohnnyRingo]

150. Sure, I'll take her any day, but thanx for asking.

The dubious list of positions is very misleading, as much political mud tends to be. Sometimes it shows a vote on a larger issue that had to pass, and other times it doesn't show what the candidate's alternate plan is.

This is like saying Bernie Sanders supports gun violence because of one strategic vote he made as a senator. Of course he doesn't.

[mgmaggiemg]

151. yep this is who we all really want....

the real us...the all of us....

[Enthusiast]

153. Kicked and recommended!

Way to go, Bubzer!

[greymouse]

166. crickets

Besides being a warmonger, a disaster in foreign policy, terrible for the middle and blue collar classes, a tool of Wall Street, and a liar, Hillary, I assume, must have done something right and/or accomplished something or some number of Democrats wouldn't be supporting her.

I have asked any number of times, what is it that she's accomplished, and all I ever hear back is crickets.

I realize, and as a feminist deplore, that some people support her because she's female, but surely there is something other than that. Even that is counterproductive, because if elected she would be one of the all time worst Presidents, and set women back years in politics.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

168. Thom Hartman makes for a great sleeping pill

[turbinetree]

172. I fully believe in the power of the vote........................................

what I cannot understand is how people vote against there best interests, time after time, after time



It is absolutely amazing, they just don't want to see, and then when they do see, they blame others for there failure of knowing better


As Carl Sandberg said:

" Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and only you can determine how it will be spent. Be careful lest you let other people spend it for you."


Carl Sandburg
US biographer & poet (1878 - 1967)


Honk-------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[Broward]

185. Excluding the rich and powerful, Hillary supporters should never again mock Republicans

for voting against their self interests lest they be hypocrites.

[turbinetree]

192. I totally agree................................

is she wins this election and she is standing at the podium behind the presidential seal putting people like this Gesler in a cabinet positions that was and is totally against protecting your self interests------------------- then they made there bed, no whining or excuses, the Facts say what will happen, it is because of the people that are in and on her super pac list.

If any one thinks that its not quid pro quo---------------then I cannot help them, nor will I

I am not going to be one of those that will say later --------------I told you so, because we are trying to tell you, We told you so now, the facts speak and tell everyone other wise




Honk-------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2106

[crim son]

173. Since nobody can be bothered to do the research, here are links that support fully or in large part

what is asserted in the OP:

Hillary on:

Minimum wage increase: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-wants-fast-food-workers-make-more-money

Death penalty: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-limiting-death-penalty

Syria: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic-state.html?_r=0

Israel: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/hillary-clinton-israel-boycott-letter/

420: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/hillary-clinton-marijuana-medical-schedule-reclassified

College tuition: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-debt-free-tuition-at-public-colleges-1439179200

Glass-Steagall: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-glass-steagall-right-or-wrong/

Universal healthcare: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

There were a couple other issues listed, but you get the idea. Clinton supporters, why are you claiming the OP is false? Indicating how she voted eight, ten, fifteen years ago does not prove anything about what she thinks today. Posting others' opinions is not the same as posting Clinton's opinions. What say you?

[Beacool]

175. Dailykos?

Meh, I don't read Dailykos. I don't have to explain to anyone why I prefer Hillary.

[Stargleamer]

178. I'm so sick of conservative Democrats n/t

[LW1977]

181. Then work harder to get people to primaries!

It's that simple.

[kgnu_fan]

182. devastating....

[MFM008]

188. yes, she has some issues

So did Barack Obama.
Its only recently he has become the president I voted for.
She changed her view on marriage equality.
I just don't think Sanders can win in states like Virginia , purple states.
Why does anyone think that Sanders would be able to get everything he wants done? No way in hell it can happen.
Obama couldnt do it with a democratic congress.
Im willing to give her a chance.

[LW1977]

200. Funny you use Thom Hartmann for that cartoon.

Hartmann also said, on a 92.5 the mic promo which airs frequently when I'm listening to Stephanie Miller's rebroadcast, that we MUST vote WHOMEVER is the the Democratic nominee, because the supreme court is at stake! Thom will be on team Hill should Sanders lose, anyone else who cares about the country should also be onboard with whoever the DNC nominates!

[Bubzer]

210. "whoever the DNC nominates!" Like hell. It's the people's choice... NOT the DNC's. Full stop!

[Corey_Baker08]

201. It's Hillary Or Trump Sanders Cannot Win The GE

[Corey_Baker08]

203. Fuck Who Trump Appoints To The Supreme Court I'll Have My 'Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bernie Sticker

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

206. Just be practical. Hold your nose firmly, forget principles, your conscience, and vote for

the lesser evil again.

"In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place" -Gandhi

[AtomicKitten]

209. Of one thing I am certain: Hillary will never be president.

[bigwillq]

215. Sad, isn't it?

Just say No. To the Clintons.

[Warren DeMontague]

219. One hopes she will "evolve"

[OkSustainAg]

236. Here is my take.

I have watched the older generation go from union supporting Democratic Party loyalists to Trump and Cruz fanatic raging republicans.
They like social security but don't know how we got it. They believe the propaganda that the government is the problem. There are many democratic party members who follow the carrot being dangled that they are almost rich and are in the higher society and did it all by themselves with no help from anyone. They are mad at the rich. But think the poor are after their stuff. I want to defeat that thinking any way I can. That is why I am voting for Bernie. How can we undo the past propaganda. How can we get them to even question what has happened in the past 35 or more years?

[Bubzer]

239. Education is the enemy of disinformation... and vice versa.

Helping people who've already learned disinformation, deprogram and learn the correct information is a daunting task. It's very hard to defeat an established perspective.

[cer7711]

237. Not Surprised At All

NAFTA

"Don't ask; don't tell"

reforming "welfare as we know it"

the "triangulation" of ever-rightward-moving policy as a means to forge political consensus

the deregulation of Wall Street

a vote in favor of invading Iraq

pursuing trade policies that drove up drug prices around the world

the implementation of draconian sentencing laws that gave us one of the highest incarceration rates in the world

HRC claiming she came under "sniper fire" after landing in Bosnia (Film exists of smiling children handing HRC flowers.)

HRC "golden handcuffs"--paid for by the American people & Goldman Sachs

suspicious last-minute election year reversals of long-standing support for TPP & the Keystone XL pipeline

luke-warm defense of unions

luke-warm efforts to raise the minimum (WORKING CLASS!) wage

Alert away, itchy pro-HRC fingers. I'll hold my nose and vote for HRC if she wins the nomination but you know what? It will be with exactly zero enthusiasm--and the understanding that hawkish, pro-war HRC will fix NOTHING in Washington or Wall Street.

......................

Time for the Clintons to exit politics, methinks. Experience only counts if you LEARN from it. And HRC, it seems, has learned all the wrong, cynical, word-parsing lessons from her husband and the 1%-ers that own her . . .

......................


SEE ALSO:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-is-sorry_us_55a83397e4b0896514d0e220

......................

AND:

In dealing with Wall Street, Clinton faced the same challenge as any lawmaker representing New York, where the financial industry includes not only constituents but campaign donors. Wall Street executives were the largest donors to both her 2006 Senate re-election bid and her 2008 presidential race; employees of just eight banking firms gave $2.67 million to those campaigns, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit research group.

Clinton in 2007 publicly decried a tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — and continues to do so in her current campaign. But she didn’t sign on as a supporter of a Senate bill that would have curbed the break.

As a senator, Clinton also had a brush with the shadow-banking world that she now describes as a continuing threat to the financial system. When AIG, the giant insurance company and poster child for lightly regulated finance, began to implode in September 2008, Clinton reached out to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was involved in talks to rescue the firm with government funds. Her little-noticed overture came on behalf of some wealthy investors who stood to lose millions and had hired two longtime associates of the Clintons to represent them.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, declined to comment for this story.

https://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-mixed-record-on-wall-street-tough-cut-it-out-talk

[scottie55]

241. Gensler Is Beyond Scum

Hate to say it but I like Hillary less and less every day.

How many more Wall Street dirt bags does she have on staff?

[Beartracks]

258. When I joined DU, EVERYone was against all that.

EVERYone.

(Except free college tuition wasn't being discussed back then.)

Her positions sound like the kind of thing all DUers used to abhor, back in the day.

And all through Obama's administration, much of this list is exactly the kind of thing everyone here WISHED he would NOT support.

I don't get it.





====================

[Recursion]

262. I wonder how those issues poll with Democrats nationally

We're a coalition, after all.

[magical thyme]

265. TPP.

Yeah, I know, she suddenly doesn't think it's "the gold standard."

[Amimnoch]

267. Some great points you make. Here's some counter points:

Hillary Clinton opposes single-payer healthcare.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/articles/2016-02-12/hillary-clinton-gets-it-on-health-care-bernie-sanders-doesnt

Medicare for all is not a new idea. A bill that would establish the program is pending in Congress now and has been for many years, but has never advanced. Even in a Sanders presidency, the situation is not likely to differ. A proposal like that would never make it through what is likely going to be a Republican-controlled House, since Republicans generally seek to shrink the role of government, not expand it.

The reality is the 115th congress is more like to continue trying to kill the ACA as it is more than working with either of our candidates to expand the ACA per Clinton's plan and much less so pass anything close to a health care for all. If we really want this, the POTUS isn't where it's going to start. Taking back Congress has to be our first goal.

She opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall.

Sadly, I'd say that's a fair statement. However, I have to ask again here, If Hillary has gotten the endorsement from every Democratic Party Senator that has given an endorsement, and all but 3 from the republican side.. What Congress is Bernie going to get this achieved with? The rebuttal every time I make this statement is that they are all in the pocket for big money. True or not, that doesn't make Bernie's proposal any more realistic. In fact, if that is a true statement it makes Bernie's claim that he can do it all the more false.

On the flip side, Obama just did a MASTER stroke judicial appointment for Scalia that will really compromise those assholes in the Senate if they refuse. Diane Humetewa, if confirmed, will make the Supreme Court prime for sending another campaign finance challenge to the SCOTUS with a high probability that we'd win it that route.

She opposes a $15 minimum wage.

Again you mistake oppose to realistic feasibility with the congress that's coming up. To be fair here, I don't see the upcoming congress allowing her lessor proposed minimum wage going through either. Too many Republicans.

She is in favor of the death penalty.

I cannot and will not defend her stance on this. IMO, it's one of the best reasons for not supporting her. If it wasn't for the other issues and reasons listed here, this would be one of the main reasons I'd be open to swapping over to Bernie.

She wants to send special forces into Syria and have a no-fly zone.

No defense that is Clinton's position. However let's examine Sanders position:

“We do not want to make a very complex situation in Syria even worse. I support President Obama’s effort to combat the Islamic State in Syria while at the same time supporting those in Syria trying to overthrow the brutal dictatorship of Bashar Assad.

“I oppose, at this point, a unilateral American no-fly zone in Syria which could get us more deeply involved in that horrible civil war and lead to a never-ending U.S. entanglement in that region.”

Well, that does state what he wouldn't do. His insinuation that Clinton is looking to do it unilaterally is also a bit disingenuous, as I have seen nothing stating that she's planning to do it without any coalition or UN assistance.

She thinks the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel is wrong.

I agree with her on this issue. BDS will single out Israel, and inflame an already explosive powder keg over there. Ironic that this is the one right after Syria. If Israel is pushed into a corner, the result could be extremely disastrous. Israel is a well armed, well trained military force in the region and a nuclear power to boot. Us making them feel isolated and without support will embolden, and empower their right wing. This is not the route that will bring justice to the Palestinians, and is more like to damage them further.

She opposes marijuana legalization.

outdated.
https://www.thefix.com/content/will-hillary-clinton-push-legal-marijuana-2016
http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/01/clinton-its-appropriate-for-states-to-legalize-marijuana/
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-calls-easing-federal-restrictions-marijuana-n459286
Despite all of that though, while states might continue to be the place where more progress is made, the 115th congress is not the one that will pass legalization on a federal level regardless of who is elected President.

I do think that if anything will pass easing up on the laws on it, Clinton with her across the aisle reach, and party backing is the one more likely to get something passed.

She opposes free tuition at universities

Not entirely true.
https://www.presidentials2016.com/hillary-clinton-sets-out-plans-for-college-tuition-fees/
However, I think this is pure election year vote pandering, and bullshit from her. I also feel it is the same from Bernie. There is absolutely no way any bill with this proposal is ever going to leave the ground in the 115th congress, much less make it through to the Presidents desk to sign into law.

Great idea, but there's going to need to be some heavy ass primaries on Democrat incumbents, and General election challenges coordinated in the mid-terms for the 116th in a couple years to even make this a remote possibility.

She supports the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform.

If there was another good reason NOT to support Clinton, this is definitely it.
Surprisingly enough, this is one area that Bernie could REALLY make a dent in Hillary on, yet he hasn't.
His list of issues, while it does go after income equality (to be fair) does not address any proposed changes in Welfare reform.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/take-2-another-look-bernie-sanders-welfare-reform-and-deep-poverty
also points it out.

Hillary Clinton supports hydraulic fracturing.

Not exactly factual.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/hillary-clinton-leftward-shift-climate

She supports the Patriot act and thinks Snowden is a criminal.

She did vote on the Patriot act back when it was overwhelmingly popular, and highly supported by the constituents who elected her to office. I'm unable to find anything one way or the other if she still thinks it is right or viable.

On Snowden:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-edward-snowden-108579
I see nothing there that is particularly unfair, untoward, or condemning of Mr. Snowden.

She wants to make flag burning a felony.

Not a cornerstone issue for me, but what I found on the bill she had proposed doesn't sound that awful.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/05/169786/-Hillary-Flag-Burning-and-a-Mini-Rant

Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill that would ban flag burning, but she is opposed to a constitutional ban on the act.
Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag.

A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution.

Clinton's move to co-sponsor the bill is seen by many observers as an apparent attempt to win over conservative voters as she preps for a possible run for the White House in 2008.

It's also a non issue. did't pass, is unlike to pass, and is unlike to pass judicial review upon challenge even before Scalia died (This is one where I fully suspect Kennedy would have crossed over). A first amendment challenge would have permanently killed it, and even with the Republican majority, there's no stomach to push that issue through the Amendment process.

[Herman4747]

276. Counter points to your counter points

"If we really want this (Medicare for all), the POTUS isn't where it's going to start. Taking back Congress has to be our first goal."

We DO REALLY WANT THIS. So we have our president pushing for it, even against a Republican Congress, to make it easier to pass when the Dems eventually retake Congress. If for decades the Democratic President never pushed for Medicare for all (or other core Democratic principles, e.g. Glass Steagall established by FDR, $15 minimum wage, etc.), the question will arise "Why?" And the lack of continuous Democratic presidential approval of Medicare-for-all would be an obstacle to overcome, especially in the Senate where filibusters are allowed.

"She opposes marijuana legalization.

outdated."

She will change her position if she believes that doing so advances her political career. The trouble is, she could just as easily shift back, if she thinks it necessary.

Fracking, and Hillary's leftward shift on climate. Given that ONLY NOW is she undertaking a "leftward shift on climate,"
The article that you yourself provide is most telling about how opportunistic Hillary is, when she thinks votes might be at stake.
From that article, we read: "Helped along by President Obama and Bernie Sanders, Clinton has broken her silence on fossil fuel extraction." Now do please explain why Bernie Sanders has to force her to do the right thing. Explain why it is only now that she is shifting left, rather than a decade ago.

From that same article you provide:
"Clinton doesn't appear to be endorsing anything too radical, or so far beyond what President Barack Obama has already started."

Throughout her career, Hillary has not been capable of thinking "outside the box."

Moving on,
On Snowden. "I see nothing there that is particularly unfair, untoward, or condemning of Mr. Snowden." If Mr. Snowden came back under a Hillary presidency, she and her attorney general would go after him. Pointedly, SHE HAS NEVER PRAISED EDWARD SNOWDEN FOR BEING A LIBERAL HERO -- in her mind, that might cost her votes, you see.

Guy, you only get ONE vote. Just one. Now with that vote, who would you rather vote for: a Bill Clinton, or an FDR? Think it over.

[Amimnoch]

289. Thank you Herman.

We DO REALLY WANT THIS. So we have our president pushing for it, even against a Republican Congress, to make it easier to pass when the Dems eventually retake Congress. If for decades the Democratic President never pushed for Medicare for all (or other core Democratic principles, e.g. Glass Steagall established by FDR, $15 minimum wage, etc.), the question will arise "Why?" And the lack of continuous Democratic presidential approval of Medicare-for-all would be an obstacle to overcome, especially in the Senate where filibusters are allowed.

Man, I completely feel you on this. It is a travesty that this country, with all of its wealth and resources does not do more to ensure the health of its people. When the government option failed to pass in 2009 I was so furious I wanted to hit someone.

In summary, you believe in pushing no matter what. I believe in pushing when it's winnable (or at the very least feasible). Total respect to you and your opinions here, but I have to go with who I think will get us the farthest in the GE. If there was an upcoming house and Senate that looked at all favorable of Senator Sanders stance on the issues, and Hillary was still giving the lackluster promises.. sure as shit, I'd be one Berning mo-fo.

Guy, you only get ONE vote. Just one. Now with that vote, who would you rather vote for: a Bill Clinton, or an FDR? Think it over.

Well, FDR hands down! Of course! However, What's a FDR Presidency without a FDR Congress??

The 73rd congress that passed the 100 days of legislation to make the new deal happen was:
313 Democrats, almost hand picked by FDR.
117 Republicans, who were batshit crazy scared of FDR.

59 Senate Democrats, pretty much hand picked by FDR
36 Republicans, who were... batshit crazy scared of FDR.
1 independent.

That unified wall of beautiful Democrat Party blue didn't go away until after the passing of FDR.

An FDR with no congress to make the vision happen is not an FDR at all.

[Bubzer]

285. Amimnoch, buddy! Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[Amimnoch]

287. Thank you Bubzer for the consideration!

I'm trying me best to keep it real, and keep it respectful.

It serves no purpose to be insulting and disrespectful to those whom, at the end of the day, you probably agree with 90% or more.

(Wish I'd have come to my senses and realized that earlier. I'd have avoided 2 time outs this season )

[Logical]

269. Kick! Nt

[deutsey]

270. One thing this primary has done is drain away any marginal support I once had for her

I still think she's preferable to Cruz and Trump (or any of the Clown Car Crew), but I have zero enthusiasm for her and have become convinced she's not the person we as a country need as president right now.

That wasn't how I felt before the primary got underway, but that's how it's turned out.

[AikenYankee]

280. K&R! nt

[dcbuckeye]

281. I'm supporting Hillary for one reason: Electability

She can win the GE. He cannot. History is on her side. I am 54 years old and old enough to remember previous elections when Dems nominated a left wing candidate who promised to raise everybody's taxes to pay for his programs. Whenever this happens, Dems get blown out in the GE. Cases in point: Nixon v. McGovern (1972), Reagan v. Mondale (1984), Bush v. Dukakis (1988). It happens every time, folks. Why would this year be different?

[forjusticethunders]

284. Electability

Nixon literally cheated to beat McGovern, and Nixon lied about an upcoming peace in Vietnam to co-opt McGovern's main issue. Détente didn't hurt either (the only good thing that slimy bastard Kissinger ever did for this planet).

McGovern also made a lot of strategic mistakes (like Eagleston). Also people forgot that Nixon won every demo, INCLUDING the youth vote.

Mondale was never going to beat Reagan no matter what he said. Maybe if FDR or JFK rose from the dead to run against Reagan then it *might* have been a race. The tax pledge had very little to do with it.

Dukakis WAS the DNC establishment guy as opposed to Jesse Jackson, and the GOP pulled out ALL the dirty tricks to swing that one.

Also this ignores that 1970s/1980s electorates were VERY different from the 2010s electorate. Whiter (and considerably more racist). More economically secure. The consequences of Reaganomics/neoliberalism weren't as apparent then as now. Furthermore, it is much, much harder to Willie Horton, or even Swiftboat a candidate. Too much social media to debunk BS within minutes, as opposed to weeks. The candidate doesn't even need to run attack ads back, if they have enough of a social media pull their supporters will tweet 10 rebuttals within 10 minutes. And the right wing has already blown it's load, or it's kitchen sink if you will, and failed to beat Obama twice, and his approval rating never really dips below 45%. Also the Republicans are more extreme than ever and the ones that aren't suck. Unless you think a huge part of the Obama coalition would stay home if Sanders was the nominee (when most of that group's reluctance to embrace him lies in the fact that there's a perception he CANNOT beat the Republican in an election in which defeating the Republican is a matter of survival), Bernie should win via cruise control.

In short, Bernie's has 2 electoral weaknesses, POC, and older voters with money. The first one is irrelevant in the general, as POC will vote for him as they (or in the case of black people, we) like what he has to offer, there's just a feeling like a candidate like him cannot win in this country, and a feeling he doesn't speak well enough to our issues. As for older upper middle class voters, if they're gonna flip for the R because they feel he's a threat to their class interests, do we really need them?

[Amimnoch]

290. I have to say, I think I disagree with that.

The republicans have given us such a clown car of candidates, I think either of our candidates can win a GE.

We've just had 8 years of having he Presidency. Historically, and logically speaking, this year should have been an easy take for them. Luckily, what they ran is so absurd, I do honestly think either of our candidates could take it.