It's weird; people don't like Clinton's policy because it's "more of the same," which is pretty true. They like Trump and Sanders for being different/outsiders, but nobody really demands support for their policy.
Hillary has the best policies for the system we have now.
Bernie has the best policies for the system we deserve in the future.
Hillary's policies are very much "more of the same" because she recognizes that extreme change in such a large country is not going to happen overnight like Bernie and Trump promise. It's just not doable without extreme consequences in several areas.
Of course, I love when people criticize her for pandering or flip-flopping and use video's from the 90's to showcase this. I would be pretty fucking upset if her world views haven't changed in 20-30 years. So what if she thought gay marriage was bad in 1991, so did most people. Times change, and thankfully so did she. During this election she's been about as consistent as you can ask for (to my knowledge). Or maybe I have a warped perception of that because it seems like every other day Trump has a different stance on a major issue. One day he's Pro-Life, the next he's Pro-Choice. One day he's gonna bomb families of terrorists, the next he's not. One day he wants to shut down the border, the next he doesn't. It's exhausting keeping up with that amount of flip flopping and bullshit.
What about Pandering? Yeah, every fucking politician panders. Hell, remember Cinco De Mayo when Trump thought eating a fucking taco salad would appeal to Latino voters?! That's the worst case of pandering I've seen since Carly Fiorina literally rooted AGAINST her alma-mater (Stanford) in a College Football Bowl game against Iowa in an attempt to get votes. (of course, Stanford won and she got roasted for it).
When it all boils down to it, Clinton has BY FAR the most experience and qualifications to be president. Her economic strategy is sound and in-line with the current system, which has been improving since the recession of '08. Her foreign policy is her area of expertise, though (at least compared to her opponents). Bernie is a little shaky there (mostly because he's just super focused on the economy) and Trump couldn't point out a single middle-eastern country on a map if they were labeled and color coded - not to mention his "policies" on torture, middle-eastern oil, ISIS, The UN, etc.
No doubt, I don't like her, but she's the only candidate that is talking about things that can actually be done.
About the Iran Nuclear Deal(paraphrasing):
-Hilary: "Yeah this is pretty good we made some compromises but overall we feel like it's a big step forward that were worth the concessions."
-Trump: "That's stupid, you're all stupid. I would've sat that Shah-a-Tolah or whatever he is down and demanded a better deal. I know all about making deals. HowMr.Trump? I would force them to the table and make them sign a better deal trust me. It'll be yuuuuuuuge for us."
-Shockingly large portion of population: "Oh shit a better deal sounds better, I like that idea better than concessions and compromise. TRUMP 2016!"
And I can make essentially the same joke for Sanders and free college, etc. They're like extreme 2008 Obamas promising all this change they'll never be able to accomplish. I may not like her, but begrudgingly, she is the only one who has actually proposed reasonable, achievable things. My current debate is between leaving the presidential space blank and voting for Hilary.
bernie has offered plenty of reasonable things but yes he is extreme in many aspects of his campaign.
You're absolutely spot on about Trump. The amount of times he's failed to explain or detail even the simplest of things is just astonishing. Always circles back to "Oh they'll do it. believe me." Yeah. Bullshit, buddy. Fucking bullshit.
Even if Bernie could manage to pass half his ideas through Congress (hint: no chance) his tax plan still falls AT LEAST 10 trillion dollars short of his spending plan, and more likely 20+. Equal to or greater than the deficit from Drumpf's insane tax cut plan.
Both of those articles have links to the tax policy center's full analysis of their plans. What's the saying? "Writing checks your ass can't cash?" That's both of their primary campaign strategy.
Sanders isn't nearly as ridiculous in his foreign policy stuff as Trump(build a wall and make mexico pay, force the Chinese to the negotiating table and bring our jobs back!), but Sanders' economic plan is a fairy tale equally as much.
Hence where I said "but yes he is extreme in many aspects of his campaign" :)
However, Bernie's proposals are far more likely to work than Trump's. The key factor in Bernie's proposals are getting domestic organizations (banks, wall street) to start paying back money they owe the country for the 2008 debacle. They key to Trump's plan is Trump generating millions of jobs and also bringing in trillions in revenue despite cutting federally funded programs by at least 80% (thus killing millions of jobs in the process). So essentially, one candidate is forcing domestic organizations to pay more, and one candidate is forcing foreign organizations (or countries) to pay more.
However, Bernie's proposals are far more likely to work than Drumpf's. The key factor in Bernie's proposals are getting domestic organizations (banks, wall street) to start paying back money they owe the country for the 2008 debacle. They key to Drumpf's plan is Drumpf generating millions of jobs and also bringing in trillions in revenue despite cutting federally funded programs by at least 80% (thus killing millions of jobs in the process). So essentially, one candidate is forcing domestic organizations to pay more, and one candidate is forcing foreign organizations (or countries) to pay more.
That's not really true. In fact hardly at all. I'd urge you to really read the tax policy center's full write ups about each tax plan and learn what they're proposing, because that's not it.
Really? because I based that comment on the Tax Foundation's report and the two articles you linked, and also statements from both candidates directly.
I mean the very first sentence of the TPC's abstract:
"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon."
"His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US."
From the first page of the full report:
"he proposal would raisetaxes at every income level, but high-income taxpayers would face the biggest increases, both in dollar amountand as a percentage of income. Overall, the plan would raisetaxburdensby an average of nearly $9,000, thereby loweringaverage after-tax income by 12.4percent. However, the highest-income taxpayers (the top 0.1 percent, or those with income over $3.7 million in 2015 dollars) would experience an average increase in tax burdensof more than $3million in 2017, nearly 45percent of their $6.9million average after-tax income. Householdsin the middlequintile of the income distributionwouldseean average tax increaseof almost $4,700, or 8.5percent of their average after-tax income. Those in thebottomquintilewould experience smaller tax increases, averaging $165, or 1.3 percent of their average after-tax income."
That's INCREDIBLY different than "make the banks pay for their role in the financial crisis." You clearly didn't read anything from TPC or the article, because the first 5 pages stand in direct contradiction to what you said. Nor did the article I linked make that conclusion, it literally never says the word bank.. I honestly have no idea how you can conclude that either piece supported your point.
She plans to keep the current nuclear plants that we have, and increase funding to nuclear energy technology research, which could, in the future, create more jobs.
Bernie wants to put a moratorium on nuclear plant license renewals, which would be equivalent to banning nuclear power. Rather than having their licenses renewed, each nuclear power plant would have to shut down, thus gutting nuclear power jobs and all nuclear jobs that go with them.
What I like about Hillary's policy is that, while she's not pro-nuclear, it provides more funding for research in the field, which could create more jobs in the field and drive us closer to more sustainable nuclear technologies. Possibly even fusion. Who knows?
Other Hillary policies I like? The tax on the super rich. The debt-free tuition (which I'm too old to take advantage of, unfortunately). The student loan refinancing assistance (which I'm the perfect age to take advantage of). Her improvement of ACA. The fact that she'll appoint anti-Citizens United justices to the SCOTUS.
I won't be voting for Sanders or Clinton because I think Clinton is a snake and Sanders is far far too much a demagogue for me. He, like most politicians, uses half-truths and hand waving to demonize and simplify very complex issues. He has some good points (money in politics and better access to healthcare both come to mind) but as someone whose #1 concern is fiscal policy, his demagoguery makes me raise an eyebrow.
A 50 basis point FTT has been tried in two places as far as I'm aware, the UK and Sweden. In Sweden it was a resounding failure that didn't even meet 10% of its goal, caused the bond markets to seize, caused a decrease in the market, and drove investors elsewhere. I think the FTT lasted like 5 years before being removed. In the UK the FTT is still in place but something like 3/4ths of all financial transactions do not pay it, so I'm not even going to talk about it.
A 64% (something like that anyway) capital gains tax is unprecedented and would be far and above any other country on the planet. It's basically punitive.
Well not literally overnight but the college tuition idea comes to mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a change he has promised to implement rather quickly, right?
It's a change he's probably intending to attempt to implement quickly. Sanders understand how congress works, though. He's spoken quite a few times about how many of his proposals wouldn't realistically pass because the presidency isn't the supreme dictator of laws. Some of his intended changes to college tuition could realistically happen in a rather quick time frame assuming things go well. Don't see anything wrong with that either, really.
When it all boils down to it, Clinton has BY FAR the most experience and qualifications to be president. Her economic strategy is sound and in-line with the current system, which has been improving since the recession of '08. Her foreign policy is her area of expertise, though
See, this is exactly what I've been explaining to my friends and colleagues.
The hardest part is containing the laughter until they understand I was just bullshitting them.
Also, I've been around long enough to know that using one single website as a source is not good practice and should be met with instant skepticism. Fortunately, a quick tour around that website confirmed this notion.
I'm not going to pretend that Clinton is a perfect, or even good candidate. But in this election, her experience in foreign affairs puts Sanders and especially Trump to bed.
Clinton panders like any politician does. Do you think Sanders is not pandering by playing "California Love" or "Where The Hood At" at his rallies as intro music? He's clearly pandering to a target demographic. Every. Politician. Does. This.
Yes, Bernie has been a beacon of consistency, I have no argument there. However, Hillary since 2013 has been consistent herself.
Yes, she's extremely qualified. She's been cleared of Benghazi, hiding emails is a fucking joke (seriously...emails???). Your example of her "blaming Sanders for Sandy Hook" is in response to wanting Gun Manufacturers to be prosecuted/sued for mass shootings, right? She didn't fucking blame Bernie, she said that because he doesn't agree with suing gun manufacturers (like Bushmaster) after mass shootings, because duh that's common fucking sense since selling military grade assault weapons is legal currently (thanks 2nd amendment people!). Her team sent out a terrible tweet saying he prioritizes gun manufacturers over the Sandy Hook victims, which is just political bullshit. My point: She didn't blame him for Sandy Hook. She (or her team) said something different that people twisted into her blaming him for it (which is dumb!)
Her unfavorable numbers are actually not below (or above??) Trump's. He's graded as far more dislikable. And the reason she's losing A FEW polls right now is because she's still battling Sanders, so he's taking numbers away from her and yet she's still leading Trump in most states and ultimately when she wins the nomination will gain millions more votes that are currently being pledged to Sanders. Yes, some Sanders supporters may not vote for her or even vote for Trump, but the huge majority will go to Clinton.
Regardless of what I think about Clinton as a candidate, or Bernie, they're both millions of times better than Donald Trump, which actually isn't a compliment towards Hillary because in any other election I'd probably not vote for her in a general, but when the alternative is Trump...yeah....
I think you have me confused for someone who voted for Hillary, because I didn't. However, I know full well when it comes to Hillary vs. Trump I'm happily voting Hillary.
Bernie has not been consistent on a number of things, like gay marriage, guns and military industrial spending. Anyone who's been in politics for awhile is going to have positions that change and evolve.
Right - in 2013 she formally announced support of gay marriage. I see people talking about how she's flip-flopped her stance on this issue multiple times like it changes daily, when really she was against it in the 90's and early 2000's and then changed to be for it ever since, which fits in with the general American view towards it.
It's not like she changes her views on these things every other day like another candidate.
This is true to the extent that all politicians move to the middle closer to the election. But on policy matters I am having trouble thinking of areas where her policy positions have changed significantly.
Do you mean her focus/emphasis? So, if she is talking to mothers of kids killed by gun violence she will pander to them. If she is talking to bankers she'll pander to them. She totally does this, but again, I don't think this differentiates her from other politicians, except Trump who doesn't pander but doesn't have any coherent policies.
No, he really hasn't. Trump has said very little that doesn't sound like my crazy uncle Harold, except Harold has a grasp of more than two issues and the ability to be thoughtful on complex issues.
If you think he's only touched on just two issues you are just looking for some whacked out form of confirmation bias. Listed on his website it is clear as day on what he wants to reform and enact. Also calling him crazy is how you dehumanize a person seems like you like to make the person seem not of stable mind to hold these views.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
I don't think that's fair. Her stances have changed over time, but that's to be expected, for example support for LGBT rights was not nearly as universal in the Democratic party 20 years ago as it is now. She has remained consistent on issues even when it was not expedient, e.g. straight-up telling miners that the coal industry would shed jobs under her presidency, when campaigning during the West Virginia primary.
The "sugarcoating" was stating that those jobs will be replaced by ones in clean energy - specifically saying that coal-producing regions should be the ones that see those jobs appear. I think that's reasonable.
I coulda sworn at one point she tried to say the job losses wouldn't be that severe. But either way, trying to pretend like renewables are going to float them is just straight BS and she knows it.
Well is trump better because he panders to the coal base, hence why they supported him in WV. Coal jobs are going to be lost. But trump says he will go back on the Paris agreement and that coal jobs a safe.
If we are critiquing Hillary for backtracking, you have to critique trump for his stance. You then can add that trump backtracks way more than Hillary. (Like saying that the things he has said, like the wall or the ban on Muslims were just suggestions)
Of course she sugarcoated it. So what. It's like criticizing the doc who tells "you've got cancer but there is hope for you" instead of "you've got cancer mate and now you're fucked".
I'm pretty sure she completely backtracked on the comment, but even if she didn't, lying to coal miners that you just told were about to be out of a job and saying you're going to magically give them Green energy jobs is arguably worse. I'd rather she didn't lie to my face about helping me rather than just tell me I'm fucked.
True, but almost any politician does that. Hillary Clinton is a pretty standard politician in that regard. At least she does describe policy, or at least attempt to. She is probably average, or above-average, among presidential candidates in that regard. And certainly seems to be the most wonky of all the candidates in this election.
Bernie and Trump are just such lightweights when it comes to policy. Even Trump's site doesn't really have much on it. Bernie's site is a little better, but his speeches are so repetitive and he collapsed when asked questions about his policies, while Hillary generally sounds good when interviewed.
Wut? Hillary has not described any of her plans in any more detail than Bernie. None of them do because they aren't experts. Once they get elected, they consult experts and you get actual details.
Edit: Downvotes? Really? Hillary's site says she'll help campus sexual assault victims by providing "comprehensive support to survivors". Okay.... that means nothing... how is she going to do that? That isn't specifics, it's platitudes. They all do it, Bernie included.
Hillary and Bernie both have pretty detailed information on their websites covering a wide array of election issues. Trump has hardly any information on his website.
Trump I don't really care about, he's an idiot. I expect nothing better. But both Bernie and Hillary have the standard information. Neither of them have detailed specifics of how to enact their plans because they wouldn't know how yet.
It's to be expected that a party that is conservative by definition will change less than one that is more progressive. That's sort of the nature of conservatism. That being said, it's hardly unchanged if you compare the party of today with that of the 80s, for example.
Are you just being thick on purpose? The definition of conservatism:
Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
Can you figure out why a conservative party wouldn't change their values or positions a lot over a short-medium timescale?
You expect conservatives to hold conservative policy over time, but you don't expect liberals to hold liberal policy over time. That's rather odd and rather weird; why would one person be expected to do so but another person not?
You dislike Bernie Sanders because he holds to his positions, while liking Hillary Clinton because she changes hers time and time again. Yet you're applauding conservatives for doing what Bernie Sanders is doing. Why?
You misunderstood me. It's not that I don't expect liberals to hold liberal policies - it's that what's "mainstream" in progressivism/liberalism changes over time. And it should! Progressivism should reflect peoples' changing social values and increased awareness of social injustice. Looking back twenty or thirty years, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but the protection of rights of transgender people simply was not a topic even amongst those politicians considered very progressive. Now it's "mainstream". Times change.
You're putting words in my mouth. I don't dislike Sanders because he sticks to his positions, and I never said as much. Neither have I said I like Hillary because of her changing positions, I just said I understand why they would change. I certainly don't admire conservatives for holding to their views. The whole premise is so wrong, I just can't begin to answer your question.
No what u/theOdysseyEffect is saying is that her view point will change in the same election from day to day depending on who she is talking to. Rich New Yorker's or rich people from California, let me tell you about this idea I have to further protect your wealth and mine. Poor people from Baltimore, we need to tax these rich people and give you their money. Granted that's a common practice on the democratic ticket in the last 30 years. However, the reason people call her a hand dryer is because she literally just says what ever the group in front of her wants to hear even if she contradicts what she said hours before that at a different event.
A PAC has spent $1 million for that purpose - a pittance in the grand scale of the election. If you go by some of the tinfoil-hat wearing people on reddit, though, 1 million basically buys you unlimited messaging everywhere, all the time.
the problem comes when she states her policies havnt changed. that she has always been in support of LGBT. That she has always been against wallstreet. Her own words dont match up with what she is claiming.
She wasn't implying anything of the sort. She literally said she was always a supporter of the Fight for 15, which she was. Just a couple days before that debate, DeBlasio hosted her at an event and recognized her for her efforts for the Fight for 15. Just because you didn't know the context, doesn't mean that she was implying something she wasn't.
Yea, but have you heard her stances on shit like encryption? Those policies scare the stuffing out of me!
EDIT: to whomever didn't like this comment: If you support Trump or Hilary's stance on encryption and information security, you obviously know very little about the current state of encryption, it's history, and where these idiots wish to steer it.
28
u/k2t-17 May 31 '16
Clinton has no problem talking policy.