[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[infinitemeridian]

I honestly don't care what they do with the affordable care act, the only impact it's had on me is negative, forcing me to pay $50 a month for garbage I'd hope to never have to use with its super high deductible. And again, as far as what Trump has "said" it all depends on how much stock you put into it. He wasn't even a Republican until a few years ago.

And comparing the cost of building a fence to a wall? You don't have the first clue about construction do you?

I think what you're arguing is because it's a wall, and because of the logistics of it, that it won't get through congress. What Matchles is saying is that, if it DOES somehow get through congress due to the republican controlled house/senate, which is MUCH more likely to ok such legislation than a democratic controlled congress, it will still be a huge waste of time/money.

In other terms, it seems that both of you are opposed to the wall, but one is arguing that given the current makeup of congress, if Trump is elected president, there is a higher chance of such a venture being undertaken, regardless of the logistics.

[Daerio]

Hillary is FAR to the left of Trump. Have you even read any of her positions or are you just sipping the Sanders syrup?

Can you narrow down this vague generalization that you shillarites keep using?

I guess Hillary is far left of Trump on immigration, (which I think Trump isn't really planning to act on anyway) but beyond that I would say their vested interests are basically the same. They'll both lean towards more tax breaks for the super wealthy, no additional spending on the middle class or poor.

Hillary is far right of Trump on foreign relations. Just as, if not more likely to get us involved in more meaningless wars.

Hillary might campaign for "equal wages" for women, but that's nothing more than token rhetoric. What is her uber-liberal agenda? Can anyone really tell me? Preferably someone who isn't voting for her, so at least I'll know it's a perspective from somebody who isn't living in generalization fantasy land.

[Mavick]

I'm sure the millions that will lose insurance will like to hear that because it negatively affected YOU, that it is fine repealing it. I'm sure all of us that actually pay for insurance will be glad to hear you'll drop it if you are allowed to and leech off the system that the rest of us pay into.

Yes, if you imagine some fictitious person that has never had Trump's stances or his proposed policies, I am sure you can think of someone as liberal as Clinton. Problem is, just claiming he wasn't a Republican until a few years ago doesn't do anything to support it.

And yes, I know the difference between a fence and a wall. You pointing that out doesn't do anything to reject the fact that Congress passed a bill materially similar within the last decade.

It's not at all similar when it comes to funding, and to consider it so is incredibly dense.

And don't even try to compare my views on health insurance. You might want to remember I'm for the guy who wants guaranteed, no deductible insurance for everyone that would actually lower the cost everyone is paying compared to now. You're the boneheads who somehow think we can continue on with this bastardized half-measure that half the country (last time I looked) still hates.

[infinitemeridian]

Can you narrow down this vague generalization that you shillarites keep using?

I guess Hillary is far left of Trump on immigration, (which I think Trump isn't really planning to act on anyway) but beyond that I would say their vested interests are basically the same. They'll both lean towards more tax breaks for the super wealthy, no additional spending on the middle class or poor.

Hillary is far right of Trump on foreign relations. Just as, if not more likely to get us involved in more meaningless wars.

Hillary might campaign for "equal wages" for women, but that's nothing more than token rhetoric. What is her uber-liberal agenda? Can anyone really tell me? Preferably someone who isn't voting for her, so at least I'll know it's a perspective from somebody who isn't living in generalization fantasy land.

-Ending privatization of prisons
-Pro gay marriage
-Pro choice
-Increased taxes on wall st and ending loopholes
-Reducing college debt and free community college
-criminal justice reform
-gun laws and reform
-building on and improving the ACA
-Environment

Where is your proof that she is going to get us into more wars? Or is it just more empty rhetoric?

For all this talk of generalizations, you sure seem to be making quite a few yourself.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[Daerio]

-Ending privatization of prisons
-Pro gay marriage
-Pro choice
-Increased taxes on wall st and ending loopholes
-Reducing college debt and free community college
-criminal justice reform
-gun laws and reform
-building on and improving the ACA
-Environment

Where is your proof that she is going to get us into more wars? Or is it just more empty rhetoric?

It's empty rhetoric based on her past experience, just as your empty rhetoric on her campaign platform is based on her words from the last 6 months alone. Where's your proof that she's going to do anything regarding taxes on wall st, college debt... and basically everything she co-opted from Sander's platform during this primary cycle?

My question was, what do you think she's going to do about any of those things? Also, this is kind of why I requested somebody who isn't drinking the Shillary koolaid.

[Deleted]

Hillary is great at being on the right side of issues, whatever the right side happens to be at that very moment. She is, after all, a political chameleon and a weather vane. I just don't know anything she would have been passionate about for the past 40 years. Nothing comes to mind as her issue, as something she has fought for and will fight for.

Nothing except getting herself on the throne.

[infinitemeridian]

It's empty rhetoric based on her past experience, just as your empty rhetoric on her campaign platform is based on her words from the last 6 months alone. Where's your proof that she's going to do anything regarding taxes on wall st, college debt... and basically everything she co-opted from Sander's platform during this primary cycle?

My question was, what do you think she's going to do about any of those things? Also, this is kind of why I requested somebody who isn't drinking the Shillary koolaid.

Her policies laid out on her website? Past statements and policy support?

You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because Hillary supports more progressive policies today does not mean her ideals have changed (for the most part), just how to achieve those things.

It's empty rhetoric on your part, because you're making the claims that she hasn't supported these things or that she won't support them in the future. You're not backing these up with anything, because you think it's so "obvious" to us that she's just a paid corporate shill that gracing us with any facts or statements by her is beneath you.

You make the claims, you back them up. I linked you to her policies on her campaign site and her past statements/positions on the ontheissues site. Now please direct me to where EXACTLY she has done/said anything so egregious that I shouldn't vote for her.

- - - Updated - - -

Hillary is great at being on the right side of issues, whatever the right side happens to be at that very moment. She is, after all, a political chameleon and a weather vane. I just don't know anything she would have been passionate about for the past 40 years. Nothing comes to mind as her issue, as something she has fought for and will fight for.

Nothing except getting herself on the throne.

You do realize that policies change and adapt over time? That public perception of cultural norms and said policies also change and adapt? Wouldn't you WANT someone who is willing to change and NOT someone who sticks to the same talking points as 20 years ago? For all this talk of being progressive, I don't think Sanders has really stepped outside his comfort zone when it comes to trying to get the things he wants done.

He takes the most basic approach (increase taxes on the rich!) and confutes that to him being progressive, when possibly, there might be an even better way to get us universal healthcare without that.

[Caolela]

Well it's the same old bullshit from the usual suspects. One could hit this thread when it has 500 pages and see the steaming pile has just grown larger.

This caca of Clinton as a "liberal" since the 1960s is facepalm worthy.

Here's what she told NPR in 1996:



http://usuncut.com/politics/npr-inte...-conservatism/

"A 1996 NPR interview with Hillary Clinton has recently resurfaced, in which the current Democratic front-runner shockingly embraced conservatism and reiterated how proud she was to support a segregationist presidential candidate.

In the interview, Clinton told NPR’s Scott Simon that her political beliefs were “rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with,” and talked about being a “Goldwater girl” in 1964:

https://youtu.be/h15-tiVWk-0

SCOTT SIMON: I mean, did you ever back in the ’60s, between when — I believe you were a Goldwater girl —
HILLARY CLINTON: That’s right.
SCOTT SIMON: — and whenever you became politically –
HILLARY CLINTON: That’s right. And I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don’t recognize this new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl.


In 1964, when Clinton was 18, she worked on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. Goldwater was running for president during the same year that the Civil Rights Act was passed, and advocated repealing the landmark legislation ensconcing the right of people of color, women, religious minorities, and other groups to be free from discrimination.

Promotion of segregation was a platform Goldwater defended all the way to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, in which he famously said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” In that same speech, Goldwater also said “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” which, ironically, could also be a criticism of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign:

https://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw

While it’s important to note that Hillary Clinton’s interview with Scott Simon took place in 1996, the fact that she embraced conservative principles and expressed pride at having worked on the Goldwater campaign is a direct contradiction with her 2016 campaign. Clinton has struggled to identify herself as a “progressive who likes to get things done,” which opened her up to criticism from democratic socialist Bernie Sanders."

...


She's a political whore, and a serial liar. She has no "liberal values" that can't be bought by a fat check from any mega-banker and corporation, which are soon forgotten when a campaign is over; unlike real 1960's liberals who actually stood for something and backed it up with their votes and support, and who didn't change with the weather (or latest political polls).

[Daerio]

You make the claims, you back them up. I linked you to her policies on her campaign site and her past statements/positions on the ontheissues site. Now please direct me to where EXACTLY she has done/said anything so egregious that I shouldn't vote for her.

Would require looking into her voting record, which doesn't seem to be something you're interested in.

Even if I could point to something that would be considered by you to be an egregious affront, I'm sure she's had time to "change" her policy stance since then, so you can write it all off as lesson learned and keep your head buried.

[Deleted]

You do realize that policies change and adapt over time? That public perception of cultural norms and said policies also change and adapt? Wouldn't you WANT someone who is willing to change and NOT someone who sticks to the same talking points as 20 years ago?

There's a difference between changing your views because you were wrong to begin with, and changing them to further your own career even though you don't actually believe what you're saying or doing. Progressivism is progressing towards the better, not changing back and forth, left and right, depending on which ever way the wind blows.

[infinitemeridian]

Well it's the same old bullshit from the usual suspects. One could hit this thread when it has 500 pages and see the steaming pile has just grown larger.

This caca of Clinton as a "liberal" since the 1960s is facepalm worthy.

Here's what she told NPR in 1996:



http://usuncut.com/politics/npr-inte...-conservatism/

"A 1996 NPR interview with Hillary Clinton has recently resurfaced, in which the current Democratic front-runner shockingly embraced conservatism and reiterated how proud she was to support a segregationist presidential candidate.

In the interview, Clinton told NPR’s Scott Simon that her political beliefs were “rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with,” and talked about being a “Goldwater girl” in 1964:

https://youtu.be/h15-tiVWk-0

SCOTT SIMON: I mean, did you ever back in the ’60s, between when — I believe you were a Goldwater girl —
HILLARY CLINTON: That’s right.
SCOTT SIMON: — and whenever you became politically –
HILLARY CLINTON: That’s right. And I feel like my political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don’t recognize this new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl.


In 1964, when Clinton was 18, she worked on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. Goldwater was running for president during the same year that the Civil Rights Act was passed, and advocated repealing the landmark legislation ensconcing the right of people of color, women, religious minorities, and other groups to be free from discrimination.

Promotion of segregation was a platform Goldwater defended all the way to the 1964 Republican National Convention in San Francisco, in which he famously said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” In that same speech, Goldwater also said “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue,” which, ironically, could also be a criticism of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign:

https://youtu.be/--375PlwiCw

While it’s important to note that Hillary Clinton’s interview with Scott Simon took place in 1996, the fact that she embraced conservative principles and expressed pride at having worked on the Goldwater campaign is a direct contradiction with her 2016 campaign. Clinton has struggled to identify herself as a “progressive who likes to get things done,” which opened her up to criticism from democratic socialist Bernie Sanders."

...


She's a political whore, and a serial liar. She has no "liberal values" that can't be bought by a fat check from any mega-banker and corporation, which are soon forgotten when a campaign is over; unlike real 1960's liberals who actually stood for something and backed it up with their votes and support, and who didn't change with the weather (or latest political polls).

It's from 20 years ago, get over yourself man.

- - - Updated - - -

Would require looking into her voting record, which doesn't seem to be something you're interested in.

Even if I could point to something that would be considered by you to be an egregious affront, I'm sure she's had time to "change" her policy stance since then, so you can write it all off as lesson learned and keep your head buried.

No it would require YOU looking into her voting record, which isn't something you're interested in, hence you can't back up any of your statements.

[Mavick]

It's from 20 years ago, get over yourself man.

- - - Updated - - -



No it would require YOU looking into her voting record, which isn't something you're interested in, hence you can't back up any of your statements.

20 years ago and she was still a grown adult with formed opinions, well at least as close to those as she ever manages to get anyway. So still relevant no matter how much you might pointlessly dispute that.

What makes people like you so absolutely hilarious is just how far you will go to ignore things like this. It's even funnier when us Sander's supporters don't even remotely have to play that stupid game. Go look at what he was saying 20 years ago, please, by all means.

[infinitemeridian]

There's a difference between changing your views because you were wrong to begin with, and changing them to further your own career even though you don't actually believe what you're saying or doing. Progressivism is progressing towards the better, not changing back and forth, left and right, depending on which ever way the wind blows.

Any proof that she is doing it to "further" her own career outside of baseless conjecture?

First of all, what is considered "right and wrong" is not solely up to liberals/progressives. What is "better" is not always what progressives tout to be the solution. What if universal healthcare in the US, even if done right, turns out to be a disaster fiscally and socially?

She hasn't changed back and forth left or right. She may have changed her stance on issues, but it wasn't willy nilly and it wasn't over a short period of time. There was build up to those changes, and years in between.

You guys have no proof that her changing her opinions on things, whatever those things are, is a bad thing. You're projecting because you want to keep that moral pedestal, because you know Sanders is losing. People don't take you seriously, because Hillary is FOREVER damned in your eyes. Nothing she does will ever be good enough. Let's say she's elected president, and sets the US on a track towards more liberal policies, or even achieves those policies under her administration.

It won't ever matter, because she'll always be a "Corporate shill" or a "corrupt warhawk" in your eyes.

- - - Updated - - -

20 years ago and she was still a grown adult with formed opinions, well at least as close to those as she ever manages to get anyway. So still relevant no matter how much you might pointlessly dispute that.

One of the things that comes with being an adult is being flexible and open to new opinions.

[Daerio]

No it would require YOU looking into her voting record, which isn't something you're interested in, hence you can't back up any of your statements.

For someone who spends so much time on the forums arguing about politics, I don't understand how you're naive enough to accept a politician's website bullet points as their actual policy positions. I guess that's a result of discussing politics on a gaming forum with bored teenagers who have more time to argue than research the things they're talking about.

I feel like anyone who's been 'jaded' by the political system and choosing the lesser of two evils (which is what Clinton supporters have been spewing) is being incredibly hypocritical by saying *I* should believe something Clinton says. You're essentially saying you don't believe her bullshit either, but at least she won't be as bad as Trump. But if that isn't good enough, I should just believe her bullshit. LOL no thanks.

[Caolela]

It's from 20 years ago, get over yourself man.

Well let's see...the interview was in 1996 wherein she was talking about her positions 32 years before that - and still harping about "the conservative values" she was raised with.

Now 20 years after that she puts a nice sounding spin on it. And then of course we have her record in the Senate and as Sec'y of State. On the most important issues such as war and economy, she'd have made Goldwater proud.

You should get over the hype and realize when you're being duped.

[Mavick]

Any proof that she is doing it to "further" her own career outside of baseless conjecture?

First of all, what is considered "right and wrong" is not solely up to liberals/progressives. What is "better" is not always what progressives tout to be the solution. What if universal healthcare in the US, even if done right, turns out to be a disaster fiscally and socially?

She hasn't changed back and forth left or right. She may have changed her stance on issues, but it wasn't willy nilly and it wasn't over a short period of time. There was build up to those changes, and years in between.

You guys have no proof that her changing her opinions on things, whatever those things are, is a bad thing. You're projecting because you want to keep that moral pedestal, because you know Sanders is losing. People don't take you seriously, because Hillary is FOREVER damned in your eyes. Nothing she does will ever be good enough. Let's say she's elected president, and sets the US on a track towards more liberal policies, or even achieves those policies under her administration.

It won't ever matter, because she'll always be a "Corporate shill" or a "corrupt warhawk" in your eyes.

- - - Updated - - -



One of the things that comes with being an adult is being flexible and open to new opinions.

LMAO, this isn't a "new opinion" we're talking about here, are you fucking serious? These are two totally opposite political viewpoints that have existed for a century+ that she has, at one time or another in her adult life, claimed to have held depending on what audience she is speaking to.

Just stop, please.

[Daerio]

Man it's really going to suck for Hillary in the general election when she is indited and those Goldman Sacs speeches magically appear out of no-where. Of course like in 2000 when Gore lost to Bush, democrats will blame Bernie supporters for having a failed candidate and not winning the election.

Shillarites swear they've got it all patched up; surely no surprises on the horizon for the entrenched democratic candidate who only barely won the nomination complete with election fraud and won most of the states which will be going to Republicans in the general.

But what a strong candidate...

[Mavick]

She's going to get destroyed in the general election, and all these "Clinton supporters" will only have themselves to thank for that.

[infinitemeridian]

For someone who spends so much time on the forums arguing about politics, I don't understand how you're naive enough to accept a politician's website bullet points as their actual policy positions. I guess that's a result of discussing politics on a gaming forum with bored teenagers who have more time to argue than research the things they're talking about.

I feel like anyone who's been 'jaded' by the political system and choosing the lesser of two evils (which is what Clinton supporters have been spewing) is being incredibly hypocritical by saying *I* should believe something Clinton says. You're essentially saying you don't believe her bullshit either, but at least she won't be as bad as Trump. But if that isn't good enough, I should just believe her bullshit. LOL no thanks.

First of all, you have 4 times as many posts as me. I'm not choosing Clinton because she's the "less of two evils" but rather that one is evil and the other isn't, and nobody has given any solid, concrete evidence to the contrary. Of course I don't take those things at face value, she's a politician in the end. But so is Sanders, so the same argument applies to her.

I'm basing my arguments on those positions, because at the end of the day, they ARE relevant, and have NOT been contradicted by anything she's said in this campaign that I can tell.

You're the one who is saying we should just believe you that she is corrupt and a "flip-flopper" who only cares about power. The burden of proof is on you my friend. You make the claims, you back them up. She's winning this election, whether you like it or not. You're not doing yourself, or any of the people who think similar to you, any favors by refusing to actually argue the case here. The Hillary camp doesn't have to prove shit to you guys, because they don't need you. They know that nothing they say will be good enough, that all the facts in the world can't change your opinions on things. They've moved on. And so has the public that rejects your point of view, otherwise it would be ME on your side trying to argue as to why Hillary is better than Sanders or why Sanders is a bad choice to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

She's going to get destroyed in the general election, and all these "Clinton supporters" will only have themselves to thank for that.

Refer back a couple of pages to Skroe's post from the WashPost about how easy it will be for Clinton to beat Trump. He has no chance. And she has a better chance than Sanders anyways, seeing as the GOP machine has largely ignored him because they don't deem him as a threat.

Any polls comparing Sanders vs. Trump are premature at this point. They've been attacking Hillary for years, as has the Sanders camp for a year now, and she's STILL winning. I can't really offer the same opinion about Sanders.

[Daerio]

The Hillary camp doesn't have to prove shit to you guys, because they don't need you.

Hope you still think so in November, big boy.

Trump's and Sander's rise this cycle was no freak accident. Hillary's going to be so embarrassed.