Here they are helping along the Panama Trade promotion agreement.
Meanwhile Bernie was calling that shit out for what it was.
Yes, they are massively more accurate. Sanders is lying to you about the cost.
You should learn how the boiled frog concept works.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.
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.
You should learn how the boiled frog concept works.
If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'm writing his name in anyway. I'm not picking between Mephistopheles and Cthulhu or what you think you are calling the lesser of two evils.
Wow so much material and strong points. Typical of BuffhhhhnnnnPresumptive bullshit.
Blanket o' bullshit, particularly wrt appointees.
I don't have a devotion to Bernie, I have a devotion to the middle class and I stand against government and corporate corruption. Clinton and her repuglican friends stand in my way.Hi TheSlamma,
While I appreciate your devotion to Bernie, the thought of one of the repugs getting in the white house is deplorable. :'(
I've not looked at her education plan. Her health care plan has an assortment of points, but the major ones are to increase ACA credits and to get more people on Medicaid. Like Sanders, critics say her numbers don't add up and her costs will be higher than claimed. Sanders' plan for true universal coverage is more comprehensive than Clinton's, but also more expensive.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.
First, that's inaccurate. Second, his increased health costs will be no worse than the cost of Clinton's useless ME wars. I'd prefer Sanders' plan to join the rest of the First World.Even assuming it's optimistic assumptions it is a trillion dollars short.
How is that anything other than a total lie.
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.
Do you consider the establishment to be rational?There's an element of commonality between certain people on the left and right, and that element is populism, by that I mean they are the types who favor populist candidates. These are the supporters of Trump and Sanders. They hate anything perceived as "establishment" and lean toward paranoia and anger as motivating factors in their politics. It isn't a surprise that attacks mounted by right wingers are echoed by left wing populists who are Sanders supporters. This is not a rational strain of American politics no matter which end of the spectrum it falls on.
I don't have a devotion to Bernie, I have a devotion to the middle class and I stand against government and corporate corruption. Clinton and her repuglican friends stand in my way.
Do you consider the establishment to be rational?
There was (briefly) an option to rate others' posts. It was predictably useless in P&N where ratings were almost entirely divided along partisan lines.I am still baffled why we cannot "like" posts here.
It means candidates that are backed by corporations and their money and then having their interests in mind rather than the people this democracy is supposed to be made for.I consider your dilemma to be false. I don't even know what that means, "establishment." Does it mean a candidate has held public office before? Then Sanders is "establishment."
This isn't game about buzzwords, about who can be called "establishment" - which is the new trendy American pejorative this election cycle. It's about whoever can do the best job in office. There's a lot of factors which go into that. Whether someone claims to be "anti-establishment" isn't one of them. That is just retail politics, a selling point for candidates who want to appeal to voters driven by emotion, mainly anger.
So no, I'm not on a "side" here in this so called conflict between "establishment" and "anti-establishment" candidates. That's another thing about populists - everyone has to be on one side or the other.
Hey right back at yaI am still baffled why we cannot "like" posts here.
It means candidates that are backed by corporations and their money and then having their interests in mind rather than the people this democracy is supposed to be made for.
So you call it anti-establishment I called it democracy. My "side" is that we the people get to make decisions where this country goes and not a handful of corporations and banks. I don't care if we have a disagreement as people on how a bill should go, but I do care if a handful of corporations has more say than 370,000,000 people.
"Establishment" isn't really that hard to understand. It describes those in politically influential positions who tend to support the status quo. They support tinkering with the system within prescribed lines, but are not interested in disrupting its foundation, e.g., the tremendous influence of an elite few with very deep pockets.I consider your dilemma to be false. I don't even know what that means, "establishment." Does it mean a candidate has held public office before? Then Sanders is "establishment."
This isn't a game about buzzwords, about who can be called "establishment" - which is the new trendy American pejorative this election cycle. It's about whoever can do the best job in office. There's a lot of factors which go into that. Whether someone claims to be "anti-establishment" isn't one of them. That is just retail politics, a selling point for candidates who want to appeal to voters driven by emotion, mainly anger.
So no, I'm not on a "side" here in this so called conflict between "establishment" and "anti-establishment" candidates. That's another thing about populists - everyone has to be on one side or the other.
Clinton supported her hubby bringing us NAFTA and killing glass stegall, she supported TPP and she supported the Panama trade agreement too. Every one of these has republicans surrounding the table with massive shit eating grins on their faces. They can all be found with a simple google image search.You're looking at who is contributing to campaigns. I'd rather look at someone's voting history, because that is more to the point. If someone receives a ton of money from Wall Street, I want to know if they voted for or against new regulations that Wall Street opposed. But then, someone must first have a voting record. The true "anti-establishment" candidate has none, which means there is less to go on.
So now, you tell me how a candidate with one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate is a corporate shill and republican in disguise. I wonder how many of these voting positions republicans agree with?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
With all due respect, that's a superficial and frankly flawed way to assess a politician's agenda. Actual votes are often symbolic gestures politicos manipulate to build an image. The real meat is understanding how each bill is built: what's in it and why, who put it there, what was left out (and who kept it out), whether it has real teeth, etc. The halls of Congress are buried in bills that purport to solve some issue while having little real impact (or even making it worse). Unfortunately, we ordinary citizens rarely have much visibility into those details. So yes, voting records are of some use, but they are often misleading.You're looking at who is contributing to campaigns. I'd rather look at someone's voting history, because that is more to the point. If someone receives a ton of money from Wall Street, I want to know if they voted for or against new regulations that Wall Street opposed. But then, someone must first have a voting record. The true "anti-establishment" candidate has none, which means there is less to go on. ...
Clinton supported her hubby bringing us NAFTA and killing glass stegall, she supported TPP and she supported the Panama trade agreement too. Every one of these has republicans surrounding the table with massive shit eating grins on their faces. They can all be found with a simple google image search.
Those are enough for me
"Establishment" isn't really that hard to understand. It describes those in politically influential positions who tend to support the status quo. They support tinkering with the system within prescribed lines, but are not interested in disrupting its foundation, e.g., the tremendous influence of an elite few with very deep pockets.
By the way, it's not just "populists" who are driven by emotions. That describes the overwhelming majority of American voters. That's why attack ads, talking points, and sound bites are so effective on both sides of the political spectrum.
First, that's inaccurate. Second, his increased health costs will be no worse than the cost of Clinton's useless ME wars. I'd prefer Sanders' plan to join the rest of the First World.