U.S. Politics - everything to the left of machine gun bacon

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I don't even think she'd be a bad president, and certainly not so when compared to the GOP clowns. But I'd like to see Americans start to take on the big money interests, and HRC isn't leading that fight.

[DanteGabriel]

But I'd like to see Americans start to take on the big money interests, and HRC isn't leading that fight.

 

No Presidential nominee of either party will take up that fight.

[aceluby]

Yeah, when her plan amounts to refinancing to save $17 a month, the plan leaves a lot to be desired.  It doesn't really address the problem and just throws more money at it w/out any oversight.

 

The only way to really control costs is through competition.  Create competition with well subsidized, good schools, that are completely regulated by who is paying the bill: the state or fed govt.  If as a student you have the choice of going to a good private school and leave with $120k in debt, or a good state regulated school and leave with $0-20k in debt, the choice is quite obvious.  When those schools lose good students because of it, the costs will drop.

 

Which, AFAIK, is pretty close to Sanders' plan.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

 
No Presidential nominee of either party will take up that fight.

Sanders will. Warren and McCain (not nominees, I know) already have begun to, even if it's unintended, with the reintroduction of Glass-Steagall. I know that's not necessarily about big money interests, but it's a huge step in fighting back against Wall Street. Sanders has also introduced legislation designed to move the campaign funding process to a public funding system.

[Shryke]

It's only delusional if you don't have context. When you know where she's gotten her money from throughout her career, when you know how on one hand she says repeat offenders should be more harshly punished with harsher prison sentences and on the other, it's not right that black people go to prison more than white people for the same crime (which we do know to be accurate), and then you consider her saying things like "we can't ask the government to pay tuition costs because that's not America works."

You then ask yourself "how does America work, in Hillary's view?" and you end up doing research to answer that question. And the answer is obvious: she's a corporate shill. The only difference between her and the GOP is that she's not some regressive asshole, which I can appreciate. But I don't want HRC's America. No thank you.

 

Uh huh. You do realise this neither addresses the point nor makes any sense, right? Like, this is just a rant about Clinton that says "I already didn't like her, so I'm saying her plan shows she's the thing I already assumed she was before I even knew it existed".

 

Her plan is not in any way related to being a "corporate shill". You can say it's not as good as Sanders, but there's not even corporations involved here. It's just a plan to cut tuition costs (or make them free in some cases), reduce interest rates on loans and encourage states to fund their schools more to, well, help reduce tuition costs (this being the main issue with rising tuition). It even includes some sort of means testing since a central plank is literally "no student should have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college".

 

Your complaints are silly and have no relation to the actual plan in question. I suggest you actually read about the plan rather then just ranting about what you assume it to be. Because this whole "corporate shill" tack of yours does not make a lick of sense.

[lokisnow]

She had every advantage over Obama during the '08 run. Money, name recognition, organization, contacts, the greater part of the Democratic Party establishment (though not all of it). Despite  that Obama destroyed her, it was protracted yes but in the end she was beaten to a pulp. We'll see if she's learned anything, given her known qualities I suspect not much.

Obama didn't destroy her, both were extremely popular with incredibly dedicated based: the contest was nearly tied at the end. Obama's operatives out maneuvered Clinton's operatives in a complex primary and caucus process. He won by hiring better people, she lost because she hired worse people, not because he was a brilliant campaigner and she was not, both did great jobs campaigning, one understood process much better.

 
 
Agreed.  Not only does he thrive on that stuff, but it's hard for her to argue she's not bought and sold, when he's the one who's been buying and selling her.  Can you imagine her denying it and him being like 'Then why did you come to my wedding?'  How does she come out of that kind of  exchange looking good?  
 
it would be entertaining, at the very least.

She'd probably tell the truth about attending the wedding: it was a phenomenal networking event that allowed them to personally connect to people who would have otherwise avoided them politically.

[Shryke]

 

Yeah, when her plan amounts to refinancing to save $17 a month, the plan leaves a lot to be desired.  It doesn't really address the problem and just throws more money at it w/out any oversight.

 

 

Didn't read the plan you are complaining about either I see.

 

Her plan does not amount to refinancing, that's just a part of it. There's also more programs on top of that to cap payments at 10% of income and then debt forgiveness after 20 years. And this is just a part of the whole plan, simply to address people who've already gone to school, rather then those going in the future. 

 

The only way to really control costs is through competition.  Create competition with well subsidized, good schools, that are completely regulated by who is paying the bill: the state or fed govt.  If as a student you have the choice of going to a good private school and leave with $120k in debt, or a good state regulated school and leave with $0-20k in debt, the choice is quite obvious.  When those schools lose good students because of it, the costs will drop.

 

Which, AFAIK, is pretty close to Sanders' plan.

 

And Clintons. If you'd read it.

 

Also this is hilariously right-wing capitalist of you. You replace "Education" with "Healthcare" and you are parroting GOP talking points about them fabled free-markets.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

There's no question Obama ran a better campaign in 2008, but the reason he was able to beat her was the opening created by her vote in favor of the Iraq War and Obama's early on the record opposition to it. Issues do matter, and that one made Clinton beatable. I don't think there is a similar issue in 2016, although I would not be at all surprised to hear Sanders contrast his opposition to the Iraq War against Clinton's support during the debates. But it won't have nearly the same importance as it did in 2008.

[Shryke]

There's no question Obama ran a better campaign in 2008, but the reason he was able to beat her was the opening created by her vote in favor of the Iraq War and Obama's early on the record opposition to it. Issues do matter, and that one made Clinton beatable. I don't think there is a similar issue in 2016, although I would not be at all surprised to hear Sanders contrast his opposition to the Iraq War against Clinton's support during the debates. But it won't have nearly the same importance as it did in 2008.

 

Nah. I mean, it helped. So did Obama flat out lying about the health care mandate (that has to piss Clinton off for sure).

 

But primarily (hehe) he simply ran up his lead in caucuses and mitigated loses in primaries by understanding the system. His people studied how the process worked. Her people didn't even know there was a difference between the primaries and caucuses.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

 
Uh huh. You do realise this neither addresses the point nor makes any sense, right? Like, this is just a rant about Clinton that says "I already didn't like her, so I'm saying her plan shows she's the thing I already assumed she was before I even knew it existed".
 
Her plan is not in any way related to being a "corporate shill". You can say it's not as good as Sanders, but there's not even corporations involved here. It's just a plan to cut tuition costs (or make them free in some cases), reduce interest rates on loans and encourage states to fund their schools more to, well, help reduce tuition costs (this being the main issue with rising tuition). It even includes some sort of means testing since a central plank is literally "no student should have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college".
 
Your complaints are silly and have no relation to the actual plan in question. I suggest you actually read about the plan rather then just ranting about what you assume it to be. Because this whole "corporate shill" tack of yours does not make a lick of sense.

I already read the plan. The plan is simply for state governments and colleges and students to do their part, because as I quoted, she doesn't think it's appropriate for the federal government to foot the bill for free. I never said corporations were specifically involved in this, I'm just commenting on how I feel she's a corporate shill with a corporate mindset to how education should be paid for.

Now, her idea for community colleges of two years being free is something I support. Again, I do like HRC, and I'm willing to vote for her in the general election. Your response assumes I haven't done my homework, but I have. HRC is not the one for me and I'm stating my reasons why.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

 

Nah. I mean, it helped. So did Obama flat out lying about the health care mandate (that has to piss Clinton off for sure).

 

But primarily (hehe) he simply ran up his lead in caucuses and mitigated loses in primaries by understanding the system. His people studied how the process worked. Her people didn't even know there was a difference between the primaries and caucuses.

 

He couldn't "simply run up his lead" without having some sizable base of support in the first place. It's the exact opposite- his campaign's superior strategy helped him parlay his support into an actual victory. But the existence of the opening to have a prayer of defeating Clinton, of being in a race tight enough that strategy mattered, is due to the controversy over the Iraq War. The exit polls from 2008 confirm this- voters naming the Iraq War as the issue most important to them were more likely to support Obama than voters naming any other issue.

 

Ron Paul was able to outmaneuver his opponents at several caucuses and conventions in 2012 very much like Obama did in 2008 caucuses, but never mustered support necessary to make his campaign's strategic superiority meaningful.

[Mudguard]

 

Nah. I mean, it helped. So did Obama flat out lying about the health care mandate (that has to piss Clinton off for sure).

 

But primarily (hehe) he simply ran up his lead in caucuses and mitigated loses in primaries by understanding the system. His people studied how the process worked. Her people didn't even know there was a difference between the primaries and caucuses.

I find this hard to believe.  How could her campaign not know the difference between the primaries and caucuses?  Do you have a cite for this?

 

Obama had a much better strategy for winning delegates in the caucuses, and that's why he did so well in caucus states.  

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I'll try to be specific as to why I don't want HRC as President, and maybe that will inspire a productive discussion: Hillary Clinton's husband's expansion of the war on drugs was absolutely disastrous. The per capita incarceration rate during the last year of his term was 42 per 100,000 and that's more than double what it was when Reagan left office (17 per 100,000). When Bush Sr left, it was 25 per 100,000. One might say that this was on Bill, but the fact is, Hillary is known to have been lobbying in favor of these so called reforms. These reforms raised existing minimum sentencing laws, established mandatory sentencing laws for possession of some drugs, and also made it so that felons were prohibited from qualification for welfare programs and good stamp programs, if their felony was a drug offense.

Now in 2015, the effects of the Clinton's efforts are still being felt by the black community, even though blacks are less likely to sell drugs than whites (5% to 6.6%). When I then turn around to read that private prisons are backing HRC, that tells me that I don't want her as president.

When a meme started going around that said Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, I thought it sounded like anti-HRC propaganda. After doing my research, it zdisappointed me to see that, throughout her career, this has shown to be true about her.

She's not special for being someone who represents big money interests, but when I consider the Clinton legacy with the drug war, the fact that she and her husband helped advocate the sentencing laws that I want to see eliminated, the fact that private prisons are funding her, the fact that black people are disproportionately locked up in those prisons...well, I don't see her being a champion for ending institutionalized racism, this stupid and racist drug war, or being any different than the status quo in terms of big money interests.

My interests are mostly in ending the war on drugs, in criminal justice reform, economic reform, and free higher education, and HRC isn't the best option available for any of that.

[Shryke]

I already read the plan. The plan is simply for state governments and colleges and students to do their part, because as I quoted, she doesn't think it's appropriate for the federal government to foot the bill for free. I never said corporations were specifically involved in this, I'm just commenting on how I feel she's a corporate shill with a corporate mindset to how education should be paid for.

Now, her idea for community colleges of two years being free is something I support. Again, I do like HRC, and I'm willing to vote for her in the general election. Your response assumes I haven't done my homework, but I have. HRC is not the one for me and I'm stating my reasons why.

 

I assume you haven't done your homework because so far none of your responses indicate that you have. You are still, in this same post, focusing on a quote from her and ignoring the actual proposal itself. Saying "The plan is simply for state governments and colleges and students to do their part, because as I quoted, she doesn't think it's appropriate for the federal government to foot the bill for free" is just a summation of a quote from her and not, you know, the actual policy proposal itself.

 

A policy proposal which still involves free tuition and when it doesn't, involves income-adjusted tuition. And encourages state funding because, well, these are state schools and the states are the main people dropping the ball on funding post-secondary education in the US.

[alguien]

This is not in response to anyone's comments in this thread thus far, but just a general pondering. 

 

I'm really curious as to how much bias for and against Hillary Clinton is because of her gender? (and age, for that matter)

 

I recall when Obama ran (and governed) that a lot of accusations of racial bias were lobbed back and forth the internet and this board itself. I certainly threw them on occasion when I thought it accurate. I still believe that had Obama had a different name and racial background, he would not have been opposed as he was. I also think there was an element of unconscious prejudice at play. 

 

And I can't help but wonder if this also translates to Hillary, even unconsciously so.

 

As a flip side, my mom, who's about as liberal as they come--like a serious uber progressive even in her late 60's, has claimed she will vote for Hillary "until the day she dies". Probably Sanders aligns a bit more with her, and she told me she, "welcomes the conversation he will bring to the table about what it means to be liberal", but she is totally voting for Hillary no matter what. In her eyes, I believe she thinks she "deserves it," especially after having to wait for Obama (who she also really liked). 

 

ETA: Full disclosure: I plan on voting for Hillary, for both practical and political reasons, being a pragmatic, left of center kind of dude. (though I like Bernie as well)

 

*also edited for grammar :)

[Shryke]

I'll try to be specific as to why I don't want HRC as President, and maybe that will inspire a productive discussion: Hillary Clinton's husband's expansion of the war on drugs was absolutely disastrous. The per capita incarceration rate during the last year of his term was 42 per 100,000 and that's more than double what it was when Reagan left office (17 per 100,000). When Bush Sr left, it was 25 per 100,000. One might say that this was on Bill, but the fact is, Hillary is known to have been lobbying in favor of these so called reforms. These reforms raised existing minimum sentencing laws, established mandatory sentencing laws for possession of some drugs, and also made it so that felons were prohibited from qualification for welfare programs and good stamp programs, if their felony was a drug offense.

Now in 2015, the effects of the Clinton's efforts are still being felt by the black community, even though blacks are less likely to sell drugs than whites (5% to 6.6%). When I then turn around to read that private prisons are backing HRC, that tells me that I don't want her as president.

 

Hillary is not Bill. She's not even campaigning on the same issues as she was 8 years ago. And both have come out against this stuff these days.

 

 

 

When a meme started going around that said Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, I thought it sounded like anti-HRC propaganda. After doing my research, it zdisappointed me to see that, throughout her career, this has shown to be true about her.

 

 

"throughout her career" of course being the fine-print all these memes like to hide. Because the numbers mostly turn out this way when you take her numbers from 1999-onward. (it's also unsurprising a Senator for New York has donations from finance)

 

She's not special for being someone who represents big money interests, but when I consider the Clinton legacy with the drug war, the fact that she and her husband helped advocate the sentencing laws that I want to see eliminated, the fact that private prisons are funding her, the fact that black people are disproportionately locked up in those prisons...well, I don't see her being a champion for ending institutionalized racism, this stupid and racist drug war, or being any different than the status quo in terms of big money interests.

My interests are mostly in ending the war on drugs, in criminal justice reform, economic reform, and free higher education, and HRC isn't the best option available for any of that.

 

 

Except, again, she's come out against that stuff. And both her and her husband have long been advocates for and communicators with the black community. There's a reason she's got great favourable numbers with non-whites and Sanders is underwater with the same groups.

 

She isn't, perhaps, as good as Sanders on many of these issues but ya need to look at what she's actually campaigning on. Cause the 90s were a long time ago. Even 2008 was a long time ago. Stuff changes.

[Shryke]

And of course just generally the President is not a King/Queen and so at the end of the day, alot of these policy proposals are going nowhere because the GOP likely will not lose the House for another 5 years at the least.

 

Politics is about what you can accomplish, not what you want to accomplish.

[Shryke]

He couldn't "simply run up his lead" without having some sizable base of support in the first place. It's the exact opposite- his campaign's superior strategy helped him parlay his support into an actual victory. But the existence of the opening to have a prayer of defeating Clinton, of being in a race tight enough that strategy mattered, is due to the controversy over the Iraq War. The exit polls from 2008 confirm this- voters naming the Iraq War as the issue most important to them were more likely to support Obama than voters naming any other issue.

 

Ron Paul was able to outmaneuver his opponents at several caucuses and conventions in 2012 very much like Obama did in 2008 caucuses, but never mustered support necessary to make his campaign's strategic superiority meaningful.

 

Sure, he had a sizable base due to various factors. But even with that base, he only beat Clinton because he played the primary game better then her. That's why Clinton was so shocked and why she refused to pull out, even when the odds of her winning were basically nothing. Because all their projections said even with his support, he didn't have enough. And that's because their projection models did not take into account various things related to how the primary process works (and is stupidly complicated and different from state to state)

 

 

I find this hard to believe.  How could her campaign not know the difference between the primaries and caucuses?  Do you have a cite for this?

 

Obama had a much better strategy for winning delegates in the caucuses, and that's why he did so well in caucus states.  

 

Can't find the stuff I had on this. But it was Mark Penn specifically who is known as chief moron.

 

From Wikipedia on another one of his blunders:

In May 2008, Time's Karen Tumulty wrote that Penn thought the Democratic primaries were "winner-take-all", rather than allotted proportionally, citing anonymous sources who attended a Clinton strategy session with Penn in 2007.

 

 

There's more on this elsewhere and it was pretty obvious from the Clinton Campaign's strategy they didn't understand this among other things.

[Commodore]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article30714762.html
 

As pressure builds on Hillary Clinton to explain her official use of personal email while serving as secretary of state, she faced new complications Tuesday. It was disclosed her top aides are being drawn into a burgeoning federal inquiry and that two emails on her private account have been classified as “Top Secret.”
 
The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications - more sensitive than previously known.

[BloodRider]

 

What's weird is you think I'm attacking Obama but for me t'm heaping praise. The man's a campaigning genius. Further reading you might be interested in

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60921_Page3.html

It doesn't matter if you are damning him or praising him.  Whatever you think you are doing, you are doing it from Cloud Cuckoo Land in the Free from Facts Republic of Whataweirdthingtomakeupadonia.