Clinton: Most Truthful Candidate with Enthusiastic Supporters

[fskimospy]

Seeing that the US is somewhat like 40+ years *behind* European states in terms of social equality & social democracy, real democracy, I have no doubt that what he wants to do will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Don't demand one old man having ALL the solutions worked out how to actually fix a system that is broken in many regards for ages already.

I don't need him to have all the solutions worked out, but I genuinely don't think he has ANY solutions worked out.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've never gotten the 'untrustworthy' thing about Hillary. Sure she's changed her positions on some things over the years, but not more than any other person who has been in government for that long. As Paul Krugman has noted this basically seems to be a repetition of a right wing smear that conservatives have been using for years:

Are there specific things about her that you think make her 'untrustworthy'?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

If you had to ask me who I thought was more likely to enact their campaign platform I would say Clinton by a country mile. Maybe Sanders is more committed to implementing his ideas than Clinton is, but he has virtually no ability to do so. He's said himself that he requires a political revolution to do this and unfortunately he's made next to no effort to actually help the down ballot races that he would need in droves to implement his plan. The most likely result of a Sanders presidency seems to be either four years of total ineffectiveness or him abandoning most of his campaign platform.

I prefer Sanders by light years over any Republican candidate, but he just doesn't seem to have a realistic plan for governance.

Krugman's right, of course. He often is.

I think Hillary can be trusted to uphold & improve core Democratic programs & values. She won't abdicate govt power to the Plutocrats, the essence of Repub ideology in a nutshell. 35 years of that have put us where we are today. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time but it's gone too far.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't need him to have all the solutions worked out, but I genuinely don't think he has ANY solutions worked out.

Indeed, just read these articles about the interview Sanders did with the New York Daily News where he was asked very specific questions about how he would implement his policy stances, and he was not able to give coherent answers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/bernie-sanders-interview-new-york-daily-news/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...about-but-didnt-in-that-daily-news-interview/

Which is a reflection of just how well fleshed out these plans really are as of now, which is to say, not very fleshed out at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

Indeed, just read this article about the interview Sanders did with the New York Daily News where he was asked very specific questions about how he would implement his policy stances, and he was not able to give coherent answers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/bernie-sanders-interview-new-york-daily-news/index.html

Which is a reflection of just how well fleshed out these plans really are as of now, which is to say, not very fleshed out at all.

I really don't fault Bernie for that. Realistically, he'd go to Dems' financial policy wonks & say "Give me a plan that does this, something that's an orderly transition. Get us there from here without breaking anything."

 

[woolfe9998]

I really don't fault Bernie for that. Realistically, he'd go to Dems' financial policy wonks & say "Give me a plan that does this, something that's an orderly transition. Get us there from here without breaking anything."

I don't fault him for lack of sincerity. I just think he's trying to accomplish things which are not realistic, which is why he is sketchy when the questions really dial down to specifics. He's good at saying what he wants to accomplish but not so good at explaining how.

 

[fskimospy]

I really don't fault Bernie for that. Realistically, he'd go to Dems' financial policy wonks & say "Give me a plan that does this, something that's an orderly transition. Get us there from here without breaking anything."

You should definitely fault him for that. If he doesn't know the mechanism by which he wants to do something then he has no idea what the costs are for doing it or if it's even feasible.

This is basically an underpants gnome plan, which is the same sort of nonsense we (rightly) get on conservatives about all the time.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

Bernie is the most honest person running for the nomination. He knows his platform and the obstacles that he will encounter. He will attempt to implement them in an orderly fashion instead of trying to put them all out at once. JMHO

 

[Exophase]

Bernie has now consistently raised more money than Hillary for a few months and that's with fewer big contributions. I think it's pretty fair to say there's more enthusiasm on his side. It's just not shown in polls that only count registered democrats mostly over landlines (therefore heavily skewing older)

 

[fskimospy]

Bernie has now consistently raised more money than Hillary for a few months and that's with fewer big contributions. I think it's pretty fair to say there's more enthusiasm on his side. It's just not shown in polls that only count registered democrats mostly over landlines (therefore heavily skewing older)

I'm not aware of any major pollster that does things over 'mostly landlines'. They haven't for a long time now.

Also, the party ID of who they sample usually varies by state as each state has different rules for who can vote in the primaries.

 

[Guurn]

I've never gotten the 'untrustworthy' thing about Hillary. Sure she's changed her positions on some things over the years, but not more than any other person who has been in government for that long. As Paul Krugman has noted this basically seems to be a repetition of a right wing smear that conservatives have been using for years:

Are there specific things about her that you think make her 'untrustworthy'?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Lets just just talk about her and Bills history. Changing views actually doesn't bother me as much as real and perceived impropriety. She has mentioned that she has lost patience with Bernie and is going to attack him more.

For his part he has barely attacked her on anything such as the FBI investigation, the foundation money from foreign governments and lobbyists who had business with her as the SoS, the lies about "sniper fire" in Bosnia, the lies about Chelsea jogging next to the WTC on 9/11, the racist campaign against Obama, laughing hysterically about defending a rapist in court, the statement that she doesn't believe she has ever lied when it has been proven demonstrably false, her recent statement that the worst people of the entire AIDS crisis in the 80s, the Reagans, were champions in the fight to stop it, multiple accusations of rape against her husband, her derivatives trading in the 70s that broke exchange regulations with the help of a shady broker and produced literally 10,000% profit ($1,000 to $100,000) in a year or the lost 500k donation to the Clinton foundation.

 

[swamplizard]

Lets just just talk about her and Bills history. Changing views actually doesn't bother me as much as real and perceived impropriety. She has mentioned that she has lost patience with Bernie and is going to attack him more.

For his part he has barely attacked her on anything such as the FBI investigation, the foundation money from foreign governments and lobbyists who had business with her as the SoS, the lies about "sniper fire" in Bosnia, the lies about Chelsea jogging next to the WTC on 9/11, the racist campaign against Obama, laughing hysterically about defending a rapist in court, the statement that she doesn't believe she has ever lied when it has been proven demonstrably false, her recent statement that the worst people of the entire AIDS crisis in the 80s, the Reagans, were champions in the fight to stop it, multiple accusations of rape against her husband, her derivatives trading in the 70s that broke exchange regulations with the help of a shady broker and produced literally 10,000% profit ($1,000 to $100,000) in a year or the lost 500k donation to the Clinton foundation.

Hi Guurn,

I'm a Bernie supporter, do you have any sources to back all of that up? I sincerely want to know. Thanks.

 

[Exophase]

I'm not aware of any major pollster that does things over 'mostly landlines'. They haven't for a long time now.

Here's a recent political poll that was primarily landline:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_12916.pdf

"80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel"

Admittedly that's not really applicable to the Gallup one, they did control for a cell:landline ratio of 60:40. But even though 40% is not a majority it's still pretty high. I don't have exact statistics but I think it's much more likely you'll catch an old person with a cell phone than a young person with a landline. Most of the younger people I know don't have landlines, while all the retirement age people I know, even the most tech illiterate ones like my mother, have cells.

There are indications that older people are in general more likely to participate in polls anyway, and I can think of a variety of reasons why this would be the case. I have certainly seen political polls that actually publish age demographics skew much older.

Also, the party ID of who they sample usually varies by state as each state has different rules for who can vote in the primaries.

Some polls do however only target registered democrats; anyone anywhere in the USA can be a registered democrat but like you say only some states require it for voting in the primaries.

 

[Guurn]

Hi Guurn,

I'm a Bernie supporter, do you have any sources to back all of that up? I sincerely want to know. Thanks.

There isn't anything in that list that isn't easy to type into google. The FBI investigation has been all over the news. Sniper fire? etc etc

 

[fskimospy]

Lets just just talk about her and Bills history. Changing views actually doesn't bother me as much as real and perceived impropriety. She has mentioned that she has lost patience with Bernie and is going to attack him more.

For his part he has barely attacked her on anything such as the FBI investigation, the foundation money from foreign governments and lobbyists who had business with her as the SoS, the lies about "sniper fire" in Bosnia, the lies about Chelsea jogging next to the WTC on 9/11, the racist campaign against Obama, laughing hysterically about defending a rapist in court, the statement that she doesn't believe she has ever lied when it has been proven demonstrably false, her recent statement that the worst people of the entire AIDS crisis in the 80s, the Reagans, were champions in the fight to stop it, multiple accusations of rape against her husband, her derivatives trading in the 70s that broke exchange regulations with the help of a shady broker and produced literally 10,000% profit ($1,000 to $100,000) in a year or the lost 500k donation to the Clinton foundation.

Quite a lot of that is either blown up small things (sniper fire? jogging near the WTC? Laughing about being a defense attorney? Saying something nice about the Reagans?) or mostly unfounded conspiracy mongering. (no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton with the cattle futures trading or any of the other 'scandals') Like I said, there are certainly times she has been dishonest in her career, but she's a politician. Bernie's not exactly a paragon of honesty either.

That being said, you have also switched your line of argument. You originally said you were worried she wouldn't follow through on policies, now you're talking about Bosnian sniper fire. I worry that Sanders won't follow through on his policies because his policies seem functionally impossible to follow through on. You seem to have a nebulous concern with Clinton in general, which I believe Krugman correctly identified as internalized Republican character attacks.

 

[Guurn]

That being said, you have also switched your line of argument. You originally said you were worried she wouldn't follow through on policies, now you're talking about Bosnian sniper fire. I worry that Sanders won't follow through on his policies because his policies seem functionally impossible to follow through on. You seem to have a nebulous concern with Clinton in general, which I believe Krugman correctly identified as internalized Republican character attacks.

How is lying and being deceitful over and over about things, no matter how small, not an indication of your character? How is it not also an indication of your proclivity to lie about the things you will do? I've raised actual concern over verifiable things, the one not removing the wool from ones eyes would not be me.

 

[fskimospy]

How is lying and being deceitful over and over about things, no matter how small, not an indication of your character? How is it not also an indication of your proclivity to lie about the things you will do? I've raised actual concern over verifiable things, the one not removing the wool from ones eyes would not be me.

So to be clear, you think she won't reform US health care because she lied about events at an airport in Bosnia? I don't know what to say to that.

It seems odd to say you trust someone less because of that sort of statement in the past but then say trust Sanders who has been dishonest about his policies themselves. Look at his health care plan, it's a total lie. Yet you would prefer someone who lies to you about the issues?

 

[werepossum]

Quite a lot of that is either blown up small things (sniper fire? jogging near the WTC? Laughing about being a defense attorney? Saying something nice about the Reagans?) or mostly unfounded conspiracy mongering. (no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton with the cattle futures trading or any of the other 'scandals') Like I said, there are certainly times she has been dishonest in her career, but she's a politician. Bernie's not exactly a paragon of honesty either.

That being said, you have also switched your line of argument. You originally said you were worried she wouldn't follow through on policies, now you're talking about Bosnian sniper fire. I worry that Sanders won't follow through on his policies because his policies seem functionally impossible to follow through on. You seem to have a nebulous concern with Clinton in general, which I believe Krugman correctly identified as internalized Republican character attacks.

Odd, everyone except Krugman seems to recognize this kind of serial lying as simply being a dishonest person. C'mon, you cannot really pretend to believe that Hillary somehow became an instant expert on cattle futures, correctly guessing eleven out of eleven movements to turn $1,000 into $100,000, and then gave it up? This is simply a pure payoff. It's a well-known dodge: the broker places two options, one going up and one going down. The successful option is exercised and attributed to the account of the person to be paid off; the unsuccessful option is attributed to the house account.

 

[Bowfinger]

... Look at his health care plan, it's a total lie. ...

Enough, already. Yes, there is a general consensus that Sanders' projections understate the total cost of his plan. That is only one part of his plan, however -- an important part, certainly, but not the only part, or even the only important part. Calling his plan a "total lie" on that basis is a lie in and of itself. If you expect people to assess Clinton fairly and accurately, you could try leading by example.

 

[Jhhnn]

Quite a lot of that is either blown up small things (sniper fire? jogging near the WTC? Laughing about being a defense attorney? Saying something nice about the Reagans?) or mostly unfounded conspiracy mongering. (no evidence of any wrongdoing by Clinton with the cattle futures trading or any of the other 'scandals') Like I said, there are certainly times she has been dishonest in her career, but she's a politician. Bernie's not exactly a paragon of honesty either.

That being said, you have also switched your line of argument. You originally said you were worried she wouldn't follow through on policies, now you're talking about Bosnian sniper fire. I worry that Sanders won't follow through on his policies because his policies seem functionally impossible to follow through on. You seem to have a nebulous concern with Clinton in general, which I believe Krugman correctly identified as internalized Republican character attacks.

Gotta love it when supposed progressives go with chicken shit right wing talking points.

It's like a fifth column of saboteurs in the Democratic Party. It's an attempt to obscure the issues, to substitute shitty attitudes for reason as is commonly done among conservatives.

WTF do these people think, anyway? That Clinton will abandon core Democratic programs? Privatize SS? Roll back voting/ women's/ civil/ LGBT rights? Sell off public lands? Put boots on the ground in the ME? Roll back Dodd-Frank? Appoint right wing ideologues to the scotus? Cut taxes at the top? Abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

There are people vying for the Repub nomination who propose all of that stuff & would do as much of it as possible with a Repub Congress.

Don't like Hillary? Anybody with the sense God gave to gophers likes the opposition a Helluva lot less.

 

[fskimospy]

Enough, already. Yes, there is a general consensus that Sanders' projections understate the total cost of his plan. That is only one part of his plan, however -- an important part, certainly, but not the only part, or even the only important part. Calling his plan a "total lie" on that basis is a lie in and of itself. If you expect people to assess Clinton fairly and accurately, you could try leading by example.

Even assuming it's optimistic assumptions it is a trillion dollars short.

How is that anything other than a total lie.

 

[Exophase]

Enough, already. Yes, there is a general consensus that Sanders' projections understate the total cost of his plan. That is only one part of his plan, however -- an important part, certainly, but not the only part, or even the only important part. Calling his plan a "total lie" on that basis is a lie in and of itself. If you expect people to assess Clinton fairly and accurately, you could try leading by example.

Do you know how much better the overall formulations of Clinton's health care and education plans are? I don't seem to hear a lot about this.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you know how much better the overall formulations of Clinton's health care and education plans are? I don't seem to hear a lot about this.

Yes, they are massively more accurate. Sanders is lying to you about the cost.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you know how much better the overall formulations of Clinton's health care and education plans are? I don't seem to hear a lot about this.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

 

[TheSlamma]

Do you know how much better the overall formulations of Clinton's health care and education plans are? I don't seem to hear a lot about this.

What we have gotten for the last 30+ years is the same thing we will get with 8 years of her. Insurance companies who can deny our claims anytime they want and education costs that continue to soar at rates that will never get paid off. That is the Clinton plan.

When the surface level political hacks are done scratching the surface of this shit that doesn't matter maybe we can talk about appointments and how miserable the long list of Obamas were with guys like Wheeler, Lynch, Taylor, Holder and the biggest idiot of em all..Archuleta was.

What we need is a president who makes appointments who don't come from lobbyist groups or corporations like Monsanto and Comcast or who say things like the "Banks are too big to fail" or that "Civil asset forfeiture is a good tool". We need someone who holds people accountable when these Bespoke tranche opportunities do the same thing CDO's did for us not even a decade ago.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

I have read what I suppose to be democrats call the other candidate a liar, a fraud, etc etc. Let's not fall to the level of the repugs and rationally discuss the issues. It is only with this level of discourse can we distinguish ourselves from them. With that said, I hope that Sanders wins, but will vote for Hillary if she should get the nomination. I pray that each of you can state the same.