"No we can't" - Hillary 2016

[mysticjbyrd]

If you are going to refuse to define progressive in a quantifiable way just say so. There's no reason to persist with this.

I doubt you will ever do it because I doubt you've ever put enough thought into the issue to be able to do so.

The conservative is upset, lol. I don't have a set of magical definitions, use the dictionary.

progressive
of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

 

[fskimospy]

The conservative is upset, lol. I don't have a set of magical definitions, use the dictionary.

progressive
of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

Yep, so basically a meaningless definition. By that definition the ACA is progressive even though you claimed it wasn't. So are you full of shit or does your definition suck?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Yep, so basically a meaningless definition. By that definition the ACA is progressive even though you claimed it wasn't. So are you full of shit or does your definition suck?

The aca wasn't a liberal idea....

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
What Sanders supporters don't get is that the President doesn't get a magic wand.

No, but he does get the best bully pulpit in the world. He also gets executive orders, SCOTUS nominations, and a powerful executive branch. That ain't a magic wand, but it's also not chopped liver.

I have mixed feelings between Sanders and Clinton. Clinton certainly has superior experience, especially re. foreign policy. She also has deep establishment support that will help her with Congressional Democrats. On the down side, she's too hawkish, too cozy with Wall Street, and her character is deficient, to put it mildly.

Sanders, in contrast, has a much better vision than Clinton. For health care, he wants to pull America forward to match all of our first-world peers. That's the right goal, and it's disheartening to hear Clinton insist it isn't even worth considering.

Can we get there with our current corrupt Congress, beholden to insurers and big pharma? Probably not, though Sanders will have his bully pulpit to get Americans on board. He also has an advantage over Obama in that, first, Obama broke the ice on providing some sort of national health care, and second, most people recognize the ACA needs to be improved dramatically. Is that enough to get Sanders' plan passed? It's a long shot, to be sure. If nothing else, Sanders can plant seeds that will eventually grow into a proper universal health care system for America.

Of course health care isn't Sanders' only issue. He's also a strong advocate for getting the money out of politics. I think he has a better chance of making progress here. Even many Republicans recognize how money is corrupting our political system; note Trump's success selling that same message. I have hope that Sanders could make headway here, by rallying bipartisan support from the American people.

The other big issue where Sanders has the definite advantage for me is military restraint. Yes, Clinton has much greater foreign policy experience. but it's not necessarily experience I agree with. She's far too eager to embroil us in questionable "wars". Sanders clearly has a much different, and IMO better approach.

Overall, I'm leaning Sanders. I do see that both Clinton and Sanders have strengths and weaknesses. I don't see any Republicans I'm inclined to support. I was intrigued by Kasich initially, in spite of occasional dumb remarks. (Eliminating teacher lounges will help fix our education problems? Really?) I recently talked with a group of Ohio folks, Republicans and Democrats. When politics came up, I asked about Kasich since no one mentioned him. They all disliked him and said he's been bad for Ohio. The consensus was that he's a very polished politician, but a phony they don't trust.

 

[TheGardener]

Yes, ACA was not a liberal idea. Romneycare was the model state legislation that Obamacare was founded on. Obama himself said as much.

 

[fskimospy]

The aca wasn't a liberal idea....

So define liberal.

 

[Indus]

So define liberal.

Eisenhower?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, ACA was not a liberal idea. Romneycare was the model state legislation that Obamacare was founded on. Obama himself said as much.

So, Repubs had an idea in the 90's that Dems implemented 10 years later at which point Repubs immediately hated their own idea.

Because Obama, obviously.

 

[feralkid]

what are the odds op disappears as soon as sanders does?

99.999%

 

[theeedude]

No, but he does get the best bully pulpit in the world. He also gets executive orders, SCOTUS nominations, and a powerful executive branch. That ain't a magic wand, but it's also not chopped liver.

I have mixed feelings between Sanders and Clinton. Clinton certainly has superior experience, especially re. foreign policy. She also has deep establishment support that will help her with Congressional Democrats. On the down side, she's too hawkish, too cozy with Wall Street, and her character is deficient, to put it mildly.

Sanders, in contrast, has a much better vision than Clinton. For health care, he wants to pull America forward to match all of our first-world peers. That's the right goal, and it's disheartening to hear Clinton insist it isn't even worth considering.

Can we get there with our current corrupt Congress, beholden to insurers and big pharma? Probably not, though Sanders will have his bully pulpit to get Americans on board. He also has an advantage over Obama in that, first, Obama broke the ice on providing some sort of national health care, and second, most people recognize the ACA needs to be improved dramatically. Is that enough to get Sanders' plan passed? It's a long shot, to be sure. If nothing else, Sanders can plant seeds that will eventually grow into a proper universal health care system for America.

Of course health care isn't Sanders' only issue. He's also a strong advocate for getting the money out of politics. I think he has a better chance of making progress here. Even many Republicans recognize how money is corrupting our political system; note Trump's success selling that same message. I have hope that Sanders could make headway here, by rallying bipartisan support from the American people.

The other big issue where Sanders has the definite advantage for me is military restraint. Yes, Clinton has much greater foreign policy experience. but it's not necessarily experience I agree with. She's far too eager to embroil us in questionable "wars". Sanders clearly has a much different, and IMO better approach.

Overall, I'm leaning Sanders. I do see that both Clinton and Sanders have strengths and weaknesses. I don't see any Republicans I'm inclined to support. I was intrigued by Kasich initially, in spite of occasional dumb remarks. (Eliminating teacher lounges will help fix our education problems? Really?) I recently talked with a group of Ohio folks, Republicans and Democrats. When politics came up, I asked about Kasich since no one mentioned him. They all disliked him and said he's been bad for Ohio. The consensus was that he's a very polished politician, but a phony they don't trust.

Sanders is pretty much guarantee a Republican president. Which means no Medicare for all and Republican justices on SCOTUS to shoot down any future health care reform plans.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Sanders is pretty much guarantee a Republican president. Which means no Medicare for all and Republican justices on SCOTUS to shoot down any future health care reform plans.

So basically the same as Hillary, lol.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, ACA was not a liberal idea. Romneycare was the model state legislation that Obamacare was founded on. Obama himself said as much.

ACA is liberal when it was Romneycare. Probably why Romney lost.

 

[Bowfinger]

Sanders is pretty much guarantee a Republican president. ...

I don't buy that. Sanders and Clinton both have baggage, and it's a sure bet the GOP will launch an epic smear campaign either way. I'm not convinced Sanders is more vulnerable than Clinton, and he is less vulnerable in some ways. Clinton is far, far more vulnerable on integrity and honesty, for example. I even know Republicans who've said they'll vote for Sanders if he's nominated because they admire his integrity.

Sanders also generates more enthusiasm than Clinton, especially among younger voters. If Sanders can increase turnout the same way Obama did in 2008, it could not only put him over the top, but also win some close Congressional races for Democrats. Clinton is not popular with many Democrats. They may stay home if Clinton is their candidate.

All that said, I'm still only leaning to Sanders, not committed to him. It's just not that black and white. Both Clinton and Sanders have their pluses and minuses.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

ACA is liberal when it was Romneycare. Probably why Romney lost.

Before it was romneycare, it was created by a right wing think tank and lobbyist.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't buy that. Sanders and Clinton both have baggage, and it's a sure bet the GOP will launch an epic smear campaign either way. I'm not convinced Sanders is more vulnerable than Clinton, and he is less vulnerable in some ways. Clinton is far, far more vulnerable on integrity and honesty, for example. I even know Republicans who've said they'll vote for Sanders if he's nominated because they admire his integrity.

Sanders also generates more enthusiasm than Clinton, especially among younger voters. If Sanders can increase turnout the same way Obama did in 2008, it could not only put him over the top, but also win some close Congressional races for Democrats. Clinton is not popular with many Democrats. They may stay home if Clinton is their candidate.

All that said, I'm still only leaning to Sanders, not committed to him. It's just not that black and white. Both Clinton and Sanders have their pluses and minuses.

Shee-it, Sherlock. Repubs have been vewy, vewy quiet about Bernie. There's a reason for that. If they can pick their opponent, they want him.

Their strategists are seasoned professionals, shrewd & ruthless. They've been cooking up a very special sauce for Bernie, just in case. It's a flambe. They'll do him the way Joe McCarthy did Communists. He's low hanging fruit for swiftliar style attacks.

OTOH, they've been gunning for Hillary for over 20 years & she's still standing. She's one of the most heavily scrutinized public figures in History. This whole "Trust" line of bullshit is built on the accusations they never proved.

What they've accomplished is something deeper- they've influenced people's basic attitudes, lenses through which we view the world. It's tough for a lot of people to see that the image is distorted by the instrumentation in their own minds. It's the last thing they'll look at, ever.

 

[ivwshane]

Shee-it, Sherlock. Repubs have been vewy, vewy quiet about Bernie. There's a reason for that. If they can pick their opponent, they want him.

Their strategists are seasoned professionals, shrewd & ruthless. They've been cooking up a very special sauce for Bernie, just in case. It's a flambe. They'll do him the way Joe McCarthy did Communists. He's low hanging fruit for swiftliar style attacks.

OTOH, they've been gunning for Hillary for over 20 years & she's still standing. She's one of the most heavily scrutinized public figures in History. This whole "Trust" line of bullshit is built on the accusations they never proved.

What they've accomplished is something deeper- they've influenced people's basic attitudes, lenses through which we view the world. It's tough for a lot of people to see that the image is distorted by the instrumentation in their own minds. It's the last thing they'll look at, ever.

Just to add credence to what you are saying. Check out this anti Sanders ad that is actually meant to help bernie...that just so happens to be from a Republican mega donor.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

This election will be about the informed versus the uninformed. Guess who will lose?
All of us.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are pulling out all the stops to get Bernie as the Democrat nominee, hoping to find some useful idiots.

 

[Bowfinger]

Republicans are pulling out all the stops to get Bernie as the Democrat nominee, hoping to find some useful idiots.

I see Sanders isn't the only one with faithful fan boys. The real world is rarely so simplistically black and white.

 

[Bowfinger]

Shee-it, Sherlock. Repubs have been vewy, vewy quiet about Bernie. There's a reason for that. If they can pick their opponent, they want him. ...

Republicans are mostly focused on fighting each other right now. They will have plenty of time to attack Democrats after the convention.

 

[Mai72]

I'm going with the hildabeast.

 

[ivwshane]

Republicans are mostly focused on fighting each other right now. They will have plenty of time to attack Democrats after the convention.

So you haven't been watching the Republican debates have you?

The Republicans have been in Hillary attack mode before she even announced she was running (I beehive it was after their failed attempt to oust Obama).

 

[compuwiz1]

So you haven't been watching the Republican debates have you?

The Republicans have been in Hillary attack mode before she even announced she was running (I beehive it was after their failed attempt to oust Obama).

As they should have been. What happened to the narrative that Republicans are the party of old white people? You libs have been against the party of old white people, before you were for the party of old white people. I want some fucking diversity!

Hillary Clinton is everything that the Democrats have rallied against, in the past. How is she now acceptable? She's a 1%er, Wall Street supporter, and recipient of Wall Street $$$. She is also bought by big Pharma, while campaigning against them, yet accepting $$$ from them. She says she's anti GMO, while accepting $$$ from Monsanto.

Not even getting into the criminal allegations against her, how you guys support her, even though she represents what most of you hate? This is hypocrisy at it's best! Some of you fuckers just want social programs and you don't care, really, where that money comes from. It's becoming real transparent.

Here's a newsflash; she's not going to do anything more for you than Obama promised to do, but probably much less. Anyone who would vote for that scum sucking bitch is only doing so because they are a blind and stupid ideologue.

 

[nickqt]

As they should have been. What happened to the narrative that Republicans are the party of old white people? You libs have been against the party of old white people, before you were for the party of old white people. I want some fucking diversity!

Hillary Clinton is everything that the Democrats have rallied against, in the past. How is she now acceptable? She's a 1%er, Wall Street supporter, and recipient of Wall Street $$$. She is also bought by big Pharma, while campaigning against them, yet accepting $$$ from them. She says she's anti GMO, while accepting $$$ from Monsanto.

Not even getting into the criminal allegations against her, how you guys support her, even though she represents what most of you hate? This is hypocrisy at it's best! Some of you fuckers just want social programs and you don't care, really, where that money comes from. It's becoming real transparent.

Here's a newsflash; she's not going to do anything more for you than Obama promised to do, but probably much less. Anyone who would vote for that scum sucking bitch is only doing so because they are a blind and stupid ideologue.

Project much?

 

[compuwiz1]

Project much?

Is that all you've got?

How can any sane person think that this horrible person should be president?

 

[Bowfinger]

So you haven't been watching the Republican debates have you?

The Republicans have been in Hillary attack mode before she even announced she was running (I beehive it was after their failed attempt to oust Obama).

I was talking about ads. You're right, of course, that Clinton is regularly attacked in speeches and debates. That's because she is still considered the presumptive Democratic nominee. It's only recently that Sanders has closed to within striking distance.

(Then there's the fact that so many Republicans have such overwhelming, irrational hatred for her. Look at Compuwiz1's post above. You surely can't think he's working some grand reverse-psychology plot, do you? His rant is pure raging emotion. It comes from the gut, not the brain.)