Clinton: Most Truthful Candidate with Enthusiastic Supporters

[Bowfinger]

You are imagining things I didn't say (or suggest).

Maybe the "establishment" candidate wants the same thing, but they see the political realities are such that it can only be achieved incrementally. Which is, uh, totally true, don't you think?

Certainly, establishment and non-establishment candidates want many of the same things. It's those candidates who want to substantially disrupt the status quo who are considered non-establishment. It is not a black and white line.

Do you really see Sanders pushing through a system of fully socialized medicine? Heck, either he or Clinton will be hard pressed to even expand Obamacare or add a public option. Because of extreme opposition from the right, socialized medicine will be achieved in increments, not as one sudden, sweeping reform. If you think Sanders can change that just because he is "anti-establishment," which by your definition just means he really, really wants to do it, then I think you're not being realistic.

No, I've made that same point in at least one thread here. I don't think Sanders can accomplish much of his agenda, especially given current political realities. Neither can Clinton. But they can move us in the right direction. Comparing the two, I think Sanders and Clinton can be at least comparably effective, with Sanders doing a better job of setting the vision and building public enthusiasm. One of the key responsibilities for a leader inspiring and motivating others to do things, not doing it all himself.

I also give Sanders an edge on pushing more effective measures to reign in "Wall Street". Perhaps I misjudge Clinton here, but Sanders' has the more clear and consistent position. I think Sanders is notably less of a hawk than Clinton. That is important. Finally, I think Sanders can draw in more voters, helping Democrats on down-ballot races. I'm concerned Clinton will lead many people to stay home on election day.

Please understand, unlike so many fan boys, my goal is not tearing down the other candidate. I think Sanders and Clinton are both decent, albeit imperfect choices. I just think Sanders is a bit better. I don't see anyone left on the right I could support.

Everyone is emotion driven by degrees. It's when people operate on emotion to the exclusion of reason that it becomes a problem. This is true of a large portion of American electorate, unfortunately. The specific trend being that we have become a society of spoiled brats who have convinced ourselves that everything here is apocalyptically horrible, but then, we have no concept of how people live elsewhere, especially in the developing world, or how people lived in the past in this country.

I agree. But things here can certainly be better. There's nothing wrong with pushing to make America better.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

Yeah, I agree it is important to look more closely at the individual bills to really assess what a voting record means, but my point was that a voting record is a better source of evidence than a list of campaign contributions. Why does it matter how much money a special interest gives to a candidate if the candidate is voting against the special interest while in office?

 

[woolfe9998]

You are imagining things I didn't say (or suggest).


Certainly, establishment and non-establishment candidates want many of the same things. It's those candidates who want to substantially disrupt the status quo who are considered non-establishment. It is not a black and white line.

Your definitions are fine. I would just point out that the "establishment" candidate may ultimately want to disrupt the status quo just as much. They just don't think they can do it over night. We can have socialized medicine by one legislative enactment tomorrow, or through 10 legislative enactments over 30 years. To me the second approach is simply more realistic in this political climate.

Anyway, my concern is the negative connotation attached to being "establishment." I think it's become a populist buzzword and I see Trump and Sanders using this negative perception to bolster their campaigns.

No, I've made that same point in at least one thread here. I don't think Sanders can accomplish much of his agenda, especially given current political realities. Neither can Clinton. But they can move us in the right direction. Comparing the two, I think Sanders and Clinton can be at least comparably effective, with Sanders doing a better job of setting the vision and building public enthusiasm. One of the key responsibilities for a leader inspiring and motivating others to do things, not doing it all himself.

I also give Sanders an edge on pushing more effective measures to reign in "Wall Street". Perhaps I misjudge Clinton here, but Sanders' has the more clear and consistent position. I think Sanders is notably less of a hawk than Clinton. That is important. Finally, I think Sanders can draw in more voters, helping Democrats on down-ballot races. I'm concerned Clinton will lead many people to stay home on election day.

Please understand, unlike so many fan boys, my goal is not tearing down the other candidate. I think Sanders and Clinton are both decent, albeit imperfect choices. I just think Sanders is a bit better. I don't see anyone left on the right I could support.

You don't need to justify your support of Sanders to me. The only Sanders supporters who bother me are the ones who are badmouthing Clinton using hoary old right wing talking points. These people should perhaps consider that IF Sanders were to become POTUS, the right will come up with a whole bunch of faux scandals and other nonsense to tarnish him the same way.

Anyway, to be clear, I will certainly be voting for Sanders if he wins the nom. This GOP field is beyond bad. It's an embarrassment to the country.

I agree. But things here can certainly be better. There's nothing wrong with pushing to make America better.

No doubt things can be better. We have problems, some of them serious. Like the fact that we haven't curbed our carbon output to any significant extent by now. And many others.

What I'm referring to is this pervasive attitude that all government is shit, all elected officials are shit, the economy is hit, everything is shit. It's nonsensical, that things could truly be as bad as so many people seem to think they are, and yet we remain one of the most prosperous nations in the world. If American politicians are all corrupt to the bone, then what we have is basically the same as in the developing world. Yet government doesn't function there because of corruption, and everything really is shit. We have totally lost all perspective. This isn't just a generally negative sentiment. I'm talking about people en masse incorrectly perceiving the world they live in. An example is people on the right believing that they are paying more taxes than they actually are. This isn't just a negative sentiment. It distorts reality in tangible ways.

This constant venting anger isn't necessarily leading to the most prudent decisions at the ballot box. Witness the phenomena that is Donald Trump. That's where populist rage leads.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your definitions are fine. I would just point out that the "establishment" candidate may ultimately want to disrupt the status quo just as much. They just don't think they can do it over night. We can have socialized medicine by one legislative enactment tomorrow, or through 10 legislative enactments over 30 years. To me the second approach is simply more realistic in this political climate.

Anyway, my concern is the negative connotation attached to being "establishment." I think it's become a populist buzzword and I see Trump and Sanders using this negative perception to bolster their campaigns.




You don't need to justify your support of Sanders to me. The only Sanders supporters who bother me are the ones who are badmouthing Clinton using hoary old right wing talking points. These people should perhaps consider that IF Sanders were to become POTUS, the right will come up with a whole bunch of faux scandals and other nonsense to tarnish him the same way.

Anyway, to be clear, I will certainly be voting for Sanders if he wins the nom. This GOP field is beyond bad. It's an embarrassment to the country.



No doubt things can be better. We have problems, some of them serious. Like the fact that we haven't curbed our carbon output to any significant extent by now. And many others.

What I'm referring to is this pervasive attitude that all government is shit, all elected officials are shit, the economy is hit, everything is shit. It's nonsensical, that things could truly be as bad as so many people seem to think they are, and yet we remain one of the most prosperous nations in the world. If American politicians are all corrupt to the bone, then what we have is basically the same as in the developing world. Yet government doesn't function there because of corruption, and everything really is shit. We have totally lost all perspective. This isn't just a generally negative sentiment. I'm talking about people en masse incorrectly perceiving the world they live in. An example is people on the right believing that they are paying more taxes than they actually are. This isn't just a negative sentiment. It distorts reality in tangible ways.

This constant venting anger isn't necessarily leading to the most prudent decisions at the ballot box. Witness the phenomena that is Donald Trump. That's where populist rage leads.

This whole "tear down the establishment" (the govt of the people) is exactly what the plutocratic insurgency wants & has largely accomplished over the last 35 years. They snookered conservatives with their rhetoric long ago.

Norseamd linked a really deep essay on the subject that got little attention, particularly from the people who really need to read it-

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/

 

[bshole]

This whole "tear down the establishment" (the govt of the people) is exactly what the plutocratic insurgency wants & has largely accomplished over the last 35 years. They snookered conservatives with their rhetoric long ago.

Norseamd linked a really deep essay on the subject that got little attention, particularly from the people who really need to read it-

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/

You just don't get it. Clinton is part of the plutocracy. She will fight to death to protect it. We are being run by a wealthy cabal that Clinton is a part of. Sanders is the only candidate that is responsive to the actual American people. It is an act of pure evil for Clinton to deny America access to man like a Sanders. Sanders is clearly the more electable candidate in the general while also being someone not simply doing the bidding of the wealthy. There simply is no reason to vote for Clinton. None.

Team Hillary (now including economist/columnist Paul Krugman) is worried about major defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their counter-attack is clear — Bernie is all pie in the sky — he isn’t facing up to the realities of Washington. And, as Krugman coldly puts it, Sanders and his supporters are letting “idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence.”


But these demeaning attacks say much more about Clinton than they do about Sanders. In effect Clinton is admitting (as is Krugman) that we have to accept American plutocracy as a given that, at best, can be modified around the edges. Neither Clinton, nor Krugman, believe that a progressive populist uprising (that Sanders is calling for and counting on) could possibly modify our elite-driven system. After all, if such a movement is possible, then Hillary is likely to lose. Therefore, it must be declared impossible, off the table, unrealistic and so on.


Clearly Clinton and Krugman accept that elite rule not only shapes our current sense of reality, but that it is our permanent reality.

Krugman, however, should know that what remains of our democracy needs to be pressured from below. His Princeton colleague, Martin Gilens, along with Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, have co-authored a study that definitely shows that the average American currently has no independent impact on public policy. They reviewed 1,779 congressional bills over the last decade and found:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.


​

Therefore, unless you already are an economic elite, you have no (“near zero”) influence over government policy, which is the textbook definition of a plutocracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/clintonkrugman-defend-har_b_9053672.html

 

[Jhhnn]

You just don't get it. Clinton is part of the plutocracy. She will fight to death to protect it. We are being run by a wealthy cabal that Clinton is a part of. Sanders is the only candidate that is responsive to the actual American people. It is an act of pure evil for Clinton to deny America access to man like a Sanders. Sanders is clearly the more electable candidate in the general while also being someone not simply doing the bidding of the wealthy. There simply is no reason to vote for Clinton. None.

You have the same kind of Savior complex as the Trumpsters.

 

[alien42]

Sanders is clearly the more electable candidate in the general while also being someone not simply doing the bidding of the wealthy. There simply is no reason to vote for Clinton. None.

lol, now that's funny. so when Clinton gets the nomination are you voting Republican?

 

[bshole]

lol, now that's funny. so when Clinton gets the nomination are you voting Republican?

I won't vote then. Hell I hadn't voted since 2000 until I voted for Bernie this Tuesday. Bernie resonates with me in a way that no other candidate has in my lifetime.

 

[alien42]

I won't vote then. Hell I hadn't voted since 2000 until I voted for Bernie this Tuesday. Bernie resonates with me in a way that no other candidate has in my lifetime.

that's probably because he's an idealist, not a realist.

 

[piasabird]

What about the Rose law firm records that mysteriously appeared in the White House when she was the First Lady? Her head is full of Jello, Jello, Jello.

What did she say when subpoena to the court about the Rose Law Firm? I dont know. I cant remember anything.

I really thing all lawyers should be disqualified for the office of the President. It violates separation of powers.

 

[Zorkorist]

I agree with Piasabird.

-John

 

[brycejones]

I don't agree with Piasabird or Zorkorist.

 

[TheSlamma]

I thought I smelled corporate corruption when I got home today.. she was at my neighbors house up the street.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

Bernie and Hillary come from two different backgrounds. I trust Bernie more to do what he thinks is right for America. With that said, and I will state again, I will vote for Hillary before voting for one of the repugs.

 

[Zorkorist]

Your a communist?

-John

 

[swamplizard]

Your a communist?

-John

Greetings Zorkorist,

I guess that was intended for me. Are you serious?

 

[Zorkorist]

Yes, you.

Are you a communist, or a socialist?

You do know that Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist?

-John

 

[swamplizard]

Yes, you.

Are you a communist, or a socialist?

You do know that Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist?

-John

Greetings again Zorkorist,

I am a retired entrepreneur (capitalist) that has long advocated social reform in the same vein as Bernie. Bernie is a lifelong activist, this may be our last chance at meaningful change. I hope that answers your question.

 

[Zorkorist]

More or less.

Welcome to the forum!

I hope Bernie and Hillary, Socialists and Communists as they are, go down in flames.

-John

 

[woolfe9998]

LOL Clinton is either a "plutocrat" i.e. a corporate wall street shill who is secretly in league with the GOP, or she's a commie, depending on who you talk to.

This is the insanity of our political culture right now. I suggest dropping these ideological labels. You'd be surprised at how doing that improves your ability to think for yourself.

 

[Zorkorist]

Greetings again Zorkorist,

I am a retired entrepreneur (capitalist) that has long advocated social reform in the same vein as Bernie. Bernie is a lifelong activist, this may be our last chance at meaningful change. I hope that answers your question.

I do like your quote...

"Sadness is a wall between two gardens." Kahlil Gibran

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

LOL Clinton is either a "plutocrat" i.e. a corporate wall street shill who is secretly in league with the GOP, or she's a commie, depending on who you talk to.

This is the insanity of our political culture right now. I suggest dropping these ideological labels. You'd be surprised at how doing that improves your ability to think for yourself.

Hillary was advocating socialized health care way before I even heard of Bernie.

She's a communist, socialist, maybe a bit more militant than Bernie, but he will catch up as soon as he is given power/if he is given power.

-John

 

[MongGrel]

Greetings again Zorkorist,

I am a retired entrepreneur (capitalist) that has long advocated social reform in the same vein as Bernie. Bernie is a lifelong activist, this may be our last chance at meaningful change. I hope that answers your question.

Zork is just another one of those random persons like Speedy on the forums that says nothing worth remembering the vast majority most of the time, just as a FYI.

()

 

[Zorkorist]

Mongrel, chooses to attack me because he is scared of what I say.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Are you one of those Scientologists, Mongrel?

That would explain a lot.

-John