U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire

[Inigima]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders and Clinton do not have MAJOR differences in policy opinion. They barely have minor ones. They have differences in how they wish to approach said policies and who they want as backers, but the actual policy isn't particularly different. 

Are you joking? You don't even have to be fully awake to catch healthcare as an obvious counterexample. I also think the Iraq War authorization vote is an instructive. And there are plenty of areas where we can quibble over what constitutes a "major" policy difference, but the number is substantial.

I'm not suggesting Hillary Clinton is a closet Republican. But I certainly don't think they're interchangeable or even close. And that's why I take umbrage at the sort of argument Albright advanced.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why? And who is going to make that ad? Sanders has supposedly held the 'principled' view that he won't do attack ads - if he does that he loses a lot of his moral high ground.

Is Trump or Cruz or Rubio going to go after the women's vote? That'll be fun.

Um, we're talking the general election. And a third party can easily cut a ton of ads that paint HRC in an awful light.

Just look at the "Hillary is a LIAR!" video going around FB and the greater net. Ads like that will really hurt her in the general, especially with her sinking trust/likeability numbers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

When you're a white man externals like sex and race don't matter. You cannot be this naive. 

Kalbear,

Yes, I am.  

And I still believe this is an individual's choice and attempting to shame women into voting for Sec. Clinton simply because she is a woman is just wrong.  She should stand on her policies and not have supporters using her sex as an argument for why people should vote for her.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders and Clinton do not have MAJOR differences in policy opinion. They barely have minor ones. They have differences in how they wish to approach said policies and who they want as backers, but the actual policy isn't particularly different.

Rethink what you just typed. They have huge differences of opinion on several issues.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Are you joking? You don't even have to be fully awake to catch healthcare as an obvious counterexample. I also think the Iraq War authorization vote is an instructive. And there are plenty of areas where we can quibble over what constitutes a "major" policy difference, but the number is substantial.

I'm not suggesting Hillary Clinton is a closet Republican. But I certainly don't think they're interchangeable or even close. And that's why I take umbrage at the sort of argument Albright advanced.

I'm not joking. 

Both Sanders and Clinton support single-payer healthcare. Sanders thinks that medicare for all will work; Clinton thinks you need something else. Both supported the ACA. 

The Iraq war was not a particularly large difference, either. Sanders wanted more evidence. He supported the war in Afghanistan, so it's not like he doesn't support war, period (that would be a major policy change). He supported the Kosovo action under Clinton - something that made his own adviser resign under protest. And while he did not support the Iraq war, he voted for the appropriations for it. 

Another way to say it is this: 98% of the time Sanders voted in lockstep with the majority democratic party. Clinton voted 95% in lockstep. 3% is not particularly major. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Um, we're talking the general election. And a third party can easily cut a ton of ads that paint HRC in an awful light.

Just look at the "Hillary is a LIAR!" video going around FB and the greater net. Ads like that will really hurt her in the general, especially with her sinking trust/likeability numbers.

Doubtful. I very much doubt that undecided women are going to vote republican over Clinton when attack ads go after her. Attacking Clinton for being anti-women isn't going to fly very well with women who are used to being attacked, I suspect.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Doubtful. I very much doubt that undecided women are going to vote republican over Clinton when attack ads go after her. Attacking Clinton for being anti-women isn't going to fly very well with women who are used to being attacked, I suspect.

Except several Republican candidates are doing just that. The examples I gave are not hypothetical, they are issues candidates have brought up unsolicited.

And again Kal, you're just flat out wrong with your claim that they don't have any major differences. Just look at how they differ on reforming Wall St., military engagements and foreign affairs, single payer vs universal coverage healthcare plans, taxes, and education reform to name a few.

26 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I'm not suggesting Hillary Clinton is a closet Republican. But I certainly don't think they're interchangeable or even close. And that's why I take umbrage at the sort of argument Albright advanced.

This.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Kalbear,

Yes, I am.  

And I still believe this is an individual's choice and attempting to shame women into voting for Sec. Clinton simply because she is a woman is just wrong.  She should stand on her policies and not have supporters using her sex as an argument for why people should vote for her.

That's a false equivalence. It can be really important to have representatives of your personal identity AND be bothered by shaming people into voting for said identity. Clinton's sex is an important part of her being voted into office and is a reason for a voter to do so. It certainly shouldn't be the only one, and I hope isn't the primary one, but saying that it doesn't exist? That's just bullshit privilege, right there. 

So yeah, I guess you don't understand - but hopefully you can get the idea that for a whole lot of people it's a pretty big deal, and you can accept it. 

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Doubtful. I very much doubt that undecided women are going to vote republican over Clinton when attack ads go after her. Attacking Clinton for being anti-women isn't going to fly very well with women who are used to being attacked, I suspect.

Ugh.  Again, it's not about getting voters to switch sides but suppressing voter turnout.  

Most of the current GOP candidates and some of the ones who've already dropped out have opened up the way to attack HRC on her support of women.  These attacks, though currently only softballs since it's only the primaries and little to no money is going into attacking the other side, aren't receiving much pushback, if any.  They've even been made by well known liberal feminist icons over the years.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lyanna,

Why should anyone be shamed into voting for a candidate based upon anything but their political opinions?  Why do externals like sex and race matter?  Second, how is this anything but an individual's call and isn't "shaming" just wrong?

Is not religion as much an external as Sex and Race?  There appears to be plenty of discussion of a candidate faith or lack of one during election.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Except several Republican candidates are doing just that. The examples I gave are not hypothetical, they are issues candidates have brought up unsolicited.

And again Kal, you're just flat out wrong with your claim that they don't have any major differences. Just look at how they differ on reforming Wall St., military engagements and foreign affairs, single payer vs universal coverage healthcare plans, taxes, and education reform to name a few.

 

No. Those are minor differences on how to implement the policy you want. Both wish to reform wall street. Both wish to reform military engagements. Both support diplomacy over military action. Both support universal healthcare. Both support a tax plan that taxes the wealthy more. Both support education reform. How those things get solved are differences, but they are not major ones. Another way to say it is this: if put in front of the other in congress, would they support the other's plans? In virtually every case I can think of the answer is yes - and we have the voting record of both to show that. 

Compare this to any of the republican candidates. None want to reform wall street. None want to reform military engagements - or if they do, want to make them more extreme. None want diplomacy. None of them want anything like universal healthcare. None of them want to tax the wealthy any more or raise taxes at all. Those ARE major policy changes. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Ugh.  Again, it's not about getting voters to switch sides but suppressing voter turnout.  

Most of the current GOP candidates and some of the ones who've already dropped out have opened up the way to attack HRC on her support of women.  These attacks, though currently only softballs since it's only the primaries and little to no money is going into attacking the other side, aren't receiving much pushback, if any.  They've even been made by well known liberal feminist icons over the years.  

That's fair, and something I'm concerned with Clinton in general. While demographics support her she does not have close to the groundswell of support that Obama did. Neither does Sanders at this point, but that'd likely change with him winning the primary (at least to a small degree). And when both sides suck and voter turnout is low, Republicans have an advantage (see 2004). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No. Those are minor differences on how to implement the policy you want. Both wish to reform wall street. Both wish to reform military engagements. Both support diplomacy over military action. Both support universal healthcare. Both support a tax plan that taxes the wealthy more. Both support education reform. How those things get solved are differences, but they are not major ones. Another way to say it is this: if put in front of the other in congress, would they support the other's plans? In virtually every case I can think of the answer is yes - and we have the voting record of both to show that.

Compare this to any of the republican candidates. None want to reform wall street. None want to reform military engagements - or if they do, want to make them more extreme. None want diplomacy. None of them want anything like universal healthcare. None of them want to tax the wealthy any more or raise taxes at all. Those ARE major policy changes.

Dude, what are you talking about?

First, HRC is closer to a neo-con's view of foreign affairs than Sander's.

Second, HRC does not want to change the status quo on Wall St., just add some reforms. That is MASSIVELY different from Sanders wanting to break up the banks.

Third, HRC's tax increases are no where near as large as Sanders.

Fourth, HRC has said openly and often that Sanders education reforms aren't possible and wouldn't work.

Lastly, HRC wants universal coverage achieved through the ACA. That's different from single payer achieved by a new system that's not the ACA.

Seriously, you can't just wash these things away by claiming "they're basically the same and oh so different from Republicans."

And bringing up their voting records isn't as productive as you'd like. Just because they typically voted the same way doesn't mean they wanted the same things from each piece of legislation.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Dude, what are you talking about?

First, HRC is closer to a neo-con's view of foreign affairs than Sander's.

Second, HRC does not want to change the status quo on Wall St., just add some reforms. That is MASSIVELY different from Sanders wanting to break up the banks.

Third, HRC's tax increases are no where near as large as Sanders.

Fourth, HRC has said openly and often that Sanders education reforms aren't possible and wouldn't work.

Lastly, HRC wants universal coverage achieved through the ACA. That's different from single payer achieved by a new system that's not the ACA.

Seriously, you can't just wash these things away by claiming "they're basically the same and oh so different from Republicans."

And bringing up their voting records isn't as productive as you'd like. Just because they typically voted the same way doesn't mean they wanted the same things from each piece of legislation.

Sanders voted for wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and appropriations in Iraq. He voted for expanded drone strikes. He didn't vote for Iraq - but that's really about it. 

Sanders wants to break up the banks - by not breaking up the banks. Have you read his way of breaking them up? Basically he's going to put them on a watchlist and force them to comply. You know...reforms. He also wants to restate the Glass-Steagall act, which...Clinton also wants.

HRC's tax increases aren't as big as Sanders. They are still tax increases. Again, differences in policy implementation, not in actual desires. 

HRC and Sanders have different views on how to get universal coverage. Both want universal coverage. This again is not a major policy difference. 

I can't speak to HRC saying that Sanders' education plan is impossible - I've not seen that. HRC has a long record of wanting and implementing education reform at a lot of levels, however, and appears to want to support cheaper tuition for colleges. It isn't the same as what Sanders wants, but again - not being the same does not constitute a major policy difference. She also wants to reduce loan interest (same as Sanders) and make community colleges tuition free (same as Sanders). 

I'm not saying that they're the same. I am saying that they are both democrats, both have voted in major lockstep with democrats and both have largely the same policy goals as the democratic national party has espoused. I think that a lot of people in the US mistake a 3% tax rate change as a major policy difference when it's not that big of a deal, and don't understand that major policy differences are the ones where a party wants a 20% rate vs. a 40% rate. This is largely haggling on the details, one way or another. 

[Inigima]

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not joking. 

Both Sanders and Clinton support single-payer healthcare. Sanders thinks that medicare for all will work; Clinton thinks you need something else. Both supported the ACA. 

The Iraq war was not a particularly large difference, either. Sanders wanted more evidence. He supported the war in Afghanistan, so it's not like he doesn't support war, period (that would be a major policy change). He supported the Kosovo action under Clinton - something that made his own adviser resign under protest. And while he did not support the Iraq war, he voted for the appropriations for it. 

Another way to say it is this: 98% of the time Sanders voted in lockstep with the majority democratic party. Clinton voted 95% in lockstep. 3% is not particularly major. 

Healthcare: I want some of what you're smoking. Clinton says single-payer healthcare will never happen. She might be right; Hillary Clinton is nothing if not pragmatic. If you think so, that's a good argument for a Clinton vote. Personally I think it's the way forward, and I would like my president to fight for it.

Iraq: Okay, Sanders wanted more evidence. So? I'm not a pacifist, and I don't think war is never the answer. But it turns out that wanting more evidence was the right call, because the premise of the war was bullshit.

98%/95%: It's true, the numbers you made up are close to each other. (Or is this an actual figure? Doesn't really matter, though I assume you'd have linked it if it were.) I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. I do actually want a Senator, once a vote gets to the table, to make the vote that gets the best possible result. Which, again, brings us back to this: I think Clinton aims too low as a matter of routine. We on the left are going to be painted as Stalinists no matter what. We might as well push for the policies we actually want. I know in politics sometimes you take half a loaf, but it would be nice if we didn't start by conceding the core of our proposal.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is not religion as much an external as Sex and Race?  There appears to be plenty of discussion of a candidate faith or lack of one during election.  

TKG,

And no one should be shamed into voting for a canadidate based on their faith.  Otherwise shouldn't Jews be campaigning for Sanders as Sanders is Jewish or go to a "special hell"?

[Inigima]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sanders voted for wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and appropriations in Iraq. He voted for expanded drone strikes. He didn't vote for Iraq - but that's really about it. 

Sanders wants to break up the banks - by not breaking up the banks. Have you read his way of breaking them up? Basically he's going to put them on a watchlist and force them to comply. You know...reforms. He also wants to restate the Glass-Steagall act, which...Clinton also wants.

HRC's tax increases aren't as big as Sanders. They are still tax increases. Again, differences in policy implementation, not in actual desires. 

HRC and Sanders have different views on how to get universal coverage. Both want universal coverage. This again is not a major policy difference. 

I can't speak to HRC saying that Sanders' education plan is impossible - I've not seen that. HRC has a long record of wanting and implementing education reform at a lot of levels, however, and appears to want to support cheaper tuition for colleges. It isn't the same as what Sanders wants, but again - not being the same does not constitute a major policy difference. She also wants to reduce loan interest (same as Sanders) and make community colleges tuition free (same as Sanders). 

I'm not saying that they're the same. I am saying that they are both democrats, both have voted in major lockstep with democrats and both have largely the same policy goals as the democratic national party has espoused. I think that a lot of people in the US mistake a 3% tax rate change as a major policy difference when it's not that big of a deal, and don't understand that major policy differences are the ones where a party wants a 20% rate vs. a 40% rate. This is largely haggling on the details, one way or another.

Clinton does not, in fact, want to reinstate Glass-Steagall. I actually think this is not a big deal, because people don't understand that law and it doesn't matter nearly as much as they think it does, but your claim is false. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-glass-steagall-right-or-wrong/

I think you have created a fictional Hillary Clinton with the positions you ascribe to her, because the real one differs substantially.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Inigima said:

Healthcare: I want some of what you're smoking. Clinton says single-payer healthcare will never happen. She might be right; Hillary Clinton is nothing if not pragmatic. If you think so, that's a good argument for a Clinton vote. Personally I think it's the way forward, and I would like my president to fight for it.

No, she says that medicare expansion as Sanders puts it through will never, ever happen in the US. But she's also clearly stated several times that she's for single payer and thinks it'll happen eventually. 

Quote

Iraq: Okay, Sanders wanted more evidence. So? I'm not a pacifist, and I don't think war is never the answer. But it turns out that wanting more evidence was the right call, because the premise of the war was bullshit.

Sure, I think that's fair. At the same time Sanders isn't a pacifist or particularly anti-war, and the Iraq war is the only war that he opposed that Clinton supported. Every other war we've had in the last 20 years he's supported. That isn't that big a difference. 

Quote

98%/95%: It's true, the numbers you made up are close to each other. (Or is this an actual figure? Doesn't really matter, though I assume you'd have linked it if it were.) I am not sure what this is supposed to prove. I do actually want a Senator, once a vote gets to the table, to make the vote that gets the best possible result. Which, again, brings us back to this: I think Clinton aims too low as a matter of routine. We on the left are going to be painted as Stalinists no matter what. We might as well push for the policies we actually want. I know in politics sometimes you take half a loaf, but it would be nice if we didn't start by conceding the core of our proposal.

The 98%/95% were from an article I read comparing how closely they align to the democratic vote. I'll see if I can find it if you care that much. I suspect you don't. I don't always link things right away because they come from days of reading. In fact, here's the transcript - it comes from Dean saying it.

Look, I'm not saying that Sanders and Clinton are the same. I've said that several times now. And I am also totally cool with the notion that if you like the differences that one has over the other, vote for that person. None of that is the same thing as making the observation that Sanders and Clinton aren't hugely different. That's all! The notion that a vote for Clinton is a vote for essentially a republican with a vagina is bullshit (not that anyone here has said that), and both are fairly dyed in the wool democrats who differ substantively only on a couple major issues (gun control for Sanders, K12 education for Clinton). 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Clinton does not, in fact, want to reinstate Glass-Steagall. I actually think this is not a big deal, because people don't understand that law and it doesn't matter nearly as much as they think it does, but your claim is false. See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-glass-steagall-right-or-wrong/

I think you have created a fictional Hillary Clinton with the positions you ascribe to her, because the real one differs substantially.

You appear to be correct on that point. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about the rest. 

[Inigima]

Just now, Kalbear said:

No, she says that medicare expansion as Sanders puts it through will never, ever happen in the US. But she's also clearly stated several times that she's for single payer and thinks it'll happen eventually. 

Not that I've seen. Can you substantiate this? This isn't me picking a fight, if she's said it I want to know. In recent memory, not during the Bill Administration.

Just now, Kalbear said:

Sure, I think that's fair. At the same time Sanders isn't a pacifist or particularly anti-war, and the Iraq war is the only war that he opposed that Clinton supported. Every other war we've had in the last 20 years he's supported. That isn't that big a difference. 

This is cogent only from the a priori position that war is always bad. It's a question of judgment -- the Iraq war is the primary "now obviously bad" war in the past 20 years. I don't have a problem with Kosovo or Bosnia, although my political memory of that period is limited due to my age at the time.

Just now, Kalbear said:

The 98%/95% were from an article I read comparing how closely they align to the democratic vote. I'll see if I can find it if you care that much. I suspect you don't. I don't always link things right away because they come from days of reading. In fact, here's the transcript - it comes from Dean saying it.

You're right, I don't care that much, that was an aside. It's the answer to a question I don't regard as important.