General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums840high
(17,196 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I bet you will get a lot of "fascinating" comments!
malaise
(269,049 posts)for the attacks
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)aggiesal
(8,916 posts)Don't complain with some support.
aggiesal
(8,916 posts)This was supposed to be for the following comment.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Complete inaccuracy.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And isn't Paul for drug decriminalization? I am assuming since he's all faux-libertarian that is the case. I don't really give a shit about his positions, though.
What else is inaccurate?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)HRC is for increases in minimum wage, against CU and for campaign finance reform. She's been a huge supporter of GLBT rights, and on and on. Bernie is not neutral on guns - the whole thing is complete crap.
Fla Dem
(23,690 posts)Clinton Presents Plan For Universal Coverage
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday unveiled a proposal to provide health insurance to all Americans, placing herself at the center of an issue that provided perhaps the greatest setback of her political career.
In a speech in Des Moines, the Democratic front-runner said she would expand insurance to the 47 million people who do not already have coverage and would attempt to reduce costs for others without spawning a massive new bureaucracy. In a far different political environment than the one that turned her efforts to establish universal health care into a fiasco in her husband's first term, Clinton offered a more modest approach than she took as first lady and head of a White House task force in 1993.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091701026.html
it gets a lot wrong
treestar
(82,383 posts)What is being "against Wall Street" and "against money in politics?"
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)jimlup
(7,968 posts)Other than that - yeah... that's what we've got for a choice. It is kind of a no-brainer if you ask me. Yeah, I'll vote lessor evil if and when it comes to that. I actually didn't have to in '08 and '12 which was a refreshing change.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... The minimum wage or not in favor of campaign finance reform (just to name two major inaccuracies). You she has a voting record as a senator. You actually can look it up instead of repeating BS.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)I support Bernie Sanders by a pretty big margin over Hillary. Yes, however, you are correct. I think the graphic is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. I will support Hillary with a clear conscience if she wins the nomination.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)titled "Positions during the last ten years", except
for Paul as far as drugs are concerned.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.is for political calculation. She tests the wind first and then takes a public stand. Unless it's a clear cut "safe" issue for womenlike being pro-choice.
Bernie has always spoken about the same policies the same wayout of true, independent conviction and values. He is not a wind-reader. He says what he believes, period. There's no duplicity or double speak in him. I never know what Hillary will actually stand for, because if she sees political danger in some positionshe won't take it.
Her reputation as a fighter actually comes from being able to withstand and resist personal attacks on her power or position. Then she's dogged. Can't remember her ever fighting for a value outside of her and Bill's political survival. But am open to an example.
rock
(13,218 posts)Psychic are we? Or do we just understand how politics works? Care to name a politician that is not that way?
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What about supporting Israel's iron dome?
Or what about voting against the Brady legislation or opposing the ability for victims to sue gun manufacturers?
That's political calculation.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
on Israel is shocking and angering, but the he was also the first Senator to step up and say he would not attend the Netanyahoo speech to Congress. He's very critical of Netty and supports O's nuclear regulation talks with Iran.
His votes on gun control are also mixed and disappointing. He's for state control rather than federal control of guns.
I didn't say he was a perfect progressive or that I agree with everything he saysbut all of it seems genuine to him. I don't see calculation or political convenience, which is what we're talking about.
He doesn't pander.
rock
(13,218 posts)But he is a politician. There's no way that his decisions and positions are not strongly influenced by politics.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)FFS - her voting record is easy to find.
PBass
(1,537 posts)That way, even if Hillary votes the way you'd like, you can still criticize her for being insincere. That way, Hillary can always be wrong, even when she's right.
Isn't that terrific?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)I don't give a damn what she believes so long as she casts votes that are not neo-liberal, but are progressive. As long we don't invade Iran, have the end of ruinous trade deals, fight for single payer health care, mount an amendment to end Citizen's United, press for a two-state solution, expand SS, strengthen Wall Street/Banking regulation, keep the estate tax etc etc and if all this also happens to fit her current calculations----hurrah!
But I'll look at her votes and her behavior and not her rhetoric---meantime, go ahead, since you look to her as your example of sincerity---you ride that belief train.
grahampuba
(169 posts)well, maybe not to you or I, but I think to a substantial portion of potential voters, young voters.
Black Lives Matter..
Is this too controversial to get behind?
Is taking a stand against a corrupt judicial system that exploits a segment of our nation too much to commit to?
Perhaps consider compassion towards this is the gateway motion towards bringing this same segment from disenfranchised and underrepresented to engaged and included into our political process maybe?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Big issue nobody seems to be talking about. Problem is, BLM is pointing out that the whole damn system is broken beyond belief. They're showing that we need an entirely new one that won't mandate the cruel oppressions and staggering inequalities we see under capitalism. Many of the leaders behind the movement (at least up here in Seattle) are very left wing, just as most major civil rights activists have been.
The Democrats won't talk about it, though, because BLM means an end to their dominance. Hell, even in Baltimore, no one is admitting that, oh yeah, they're all Democrats in charge over there. They have historically resisted radical (and necessary and just) change with all their power. They will continue to do so now. We already see them attempting to bring radicals and activists back into the fold.
The Democratic Party: where radical socio-economic movements have gone to die for over a century.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It lies.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)It's about 80% inaccurate. But run with it, sure why not. It's cool to post total bullshit.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Oh an when she speaks are you willing to listen?
Or will what she says just be "pandering"?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Bernie is absolutely clear about his positions. If Hillary doesn't share his views then she should explain her positions and tell us what she is willing to fight for.
a kennedy
(29,672 posts)That's what I can afford to get the man elected...... BERNIE.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The graphic appears to be inaccurate.
It's like it was created by a 15-year-old.
TM99
(8,352 posts)finally has caught up to the rest of us including Sanders on support for gay marriage.
Now your own link highlights one of my biggest problems with Clinton.
Yes, she did tweet her support, however, that was about it.
On Tuesday, The New York Times noted while Clinton has endorsed raising the minimum wage, she has been vague on how quickly she wants to raise it and exactly how high it should be.
From the New York Times article --
Mrs. Clinton has voiced her support for the fast-food and domestic workers all across our country who ask for nothing more than a living wage and a fair shot.
An aide said that, shes for an increase in the minimum wage, and she wants to have a conversation about the right target and timeline.
Even progressive economists argue that some caution is merited. Mr. Bernstein, a supporter of a substantial minimum wage increase with a reputation as being the Obama White Houses most liberal in-house economist, said that $15 an hour gave him pause because it was out of sample. That is, there was no precedent to demonstrate it wouldnt cost jobs.
The question of speed, though, may be especially sensitive for Mrs. Clinton.
She may ultimately align with her partys base on many economic issues. But any reluctance by Mrs. Clinton to say whether she explicitly supports the goals of the Fight for $15 campaign or even how far toward them she would hope to come as president could curb enthusiasm for her candidacy among progressives and low-income workers at the very moment shes officially engaged.
Mrs. Clinton, after all, promised in her announcement that she wanted to be a champion for everyday Americans. She pledged to labor on their behalf so that you can do more than just get by. You can get ahead, and stay ahead.
She has a massive challenge in the general election, said Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor who mounted an unexpectedly strong Democratic primary challenge to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York last year. The strategy of silence and then gradual coming around does not lead people, even if the sentence polls well, to get out and organize.
So she supports it but in vague 'feel good' terms and is willing to 'have a conversation' on it at a future undisclosed time.
Now contrast that to Sanders on the minimum wage.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-calls-for-minimum-wage-increase
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/12/30/minute-bernie-sanders-destroys-gop-opposition-raising-minimum-wage.html
That was 2013.
And now in 2015, we have his rally, his answers to direct questions, and an amendment.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/sen-sanders-touts-15-minimum-wage-says-employment-states-higher-wages
Now yes, the graphic is simplistic and definitely lacks nuance, but as so many Clinton supporters keep reminding us, American voters are stupid, respond to sound bites, and do not follow politics like the average DU'er. In that regards then, this graphic is close enough to the truth as it is to qualify and garner votes form those 'stupid' Americans for Sanders over Clinton.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But it's still here.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #32)
Post removed
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Fla Dem
(23,690 posts)Hillary Clinton fought to tie the minimum wage to future increases in Congressional salaries.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced the Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act to bind future salary increases for Congress to mandatory increases in the federal minimum wage. Under the provisions of the legislation, the federal minimum wage would be automatically increased by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year..."Speaking to the importance of her bill, Senator Clinton said, We can no longer stand by and regularly give ourselves a pay increase while denying a minimum wage increase to help the more than 7 million men and women working hard across this nation. At a time when working families are struggling to put food on the table, it's critically important that we here in Washington do something. If Members of Congress need an annual cost of living adjustment, then certainly the lowest-paid members of our society do too.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly introduced legislation to increase the federal minimum wage.
Hillary Clintons Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years. Introducing her 2006 bill, Senator Clinton stated : I ask my colleagues to recognize the moral aspect of this issue. It is simply wrong to pay people a wage that they can barely live on We should raise the Federal minimum wage so that working parent s can lift their children out of poverty. It is past time to make this investment in our children and families. Senator Clintons Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2007 would have increased the federal minimum wage from $5.85 to $9.50 an hour.
Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times and consistently voted to support it.
Over the course of her time in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to raise the federal minimum wage in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007. Senator Clinton opposed Republican efforts to weaken the minimum wage, and she repeatedly backed Democratic efforts to raise it. Although she opposed the Iraq funding bill it was folded into, Clinton cosponsored the original version of the Fair Minimum Wage Act that increased the minimum wage for the first time in ten years, from $5.85 to $7.25 an hour. It was one of the five bills Senator Clinton cosponsored to raise the minimum wage
As First Lady
In 1999, Hillary and Ted Kennedy worked together to push for a minimum wage increase.
As she said at a White House event with Ted Kennedy in September 1999, America can afford to raise the minimum wage. The last time it was raised in 1996, 10 million Americans got a raise and the economy continued to create jobs at an unprecedented pace. Now raising the minimum wage is certainly an American issue and a human issue, but it is particularly a womans issue. It is also a childrens issue and a family issue . So I would hope that every member of Congress the next time they visit a parent in a nursing home, sit down in a restaurant for a meal, see someone cleaning their office, or know what goes on in so many other settings where people work hard every day would want every American to share in this kind of prosperity, and would want to
raise the minimum wage. Unfortunately, their push was unsuccessful.
more at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/221116545/Correct-the-Record-on-Clinton-s-Minimum-Wage-Record
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)what a piece of manipulative shit.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If I found that quote just lying around somewhere, I'd know EXACTLY who said it.
It's totally noncommittal like every other thing she says.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Just checking...
Also it's *Tumblr
TM99
(8,352 posts)If we go down the list, it is fairly accurate.
I will go down the list and show why it is fairly accurate.
1) Yes, both Sanders and Clinton are Pro-Choice. Check.
2) Yes, Sanders is for Universal Health Care. No Clinton is not. She argued for mandated health insurance in 2008. Many voted for Obama who was against the mandated insurance option in 2008 only to reverse his position once elected and go full in on HeritageCare. Check.
3) Yes, Clinton is on record as being for 'full' gun control. And Sanders record is more neutral. He has been consistent for some controls on guns but not 'full' control. He still receives an F rating from the NRA so he is definitely not a full blown 'gun nuter'. Check.
4) I am going to address both Against Big Business and Against Wall Street as they are so intimately intertwined. Sanders has been consistently opposed to the excesses of corporations and Wall Street for decades. Clinton has not. She is on record saying that pitchforks are not support for business. She was involved as SoS with drafting aspects of the TPP. She has been a board member of Walmart, one of the most predatory abusers of corporate welfare in this country. On both of those, yes, that is a big Check.
5) Sanders has consistently been against drug criminalization. Clinton since the 1990's has embraced the war on drugs.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/clinton-legalization-not-the-answer-to-the-drug-war-150696.html one such example. Sanders began speaking about legalizing marijuana as early as 2001. Again, another Check.
6) Sanders is consistent and completely congruent when it comes to money in politics and overturning Citizens United. He has refused to take corporate money. Clinton at best is incongruent only giving lip service at this time to this by stating she will over-turn it but is still taking the money. I would give this a qualified check but it is still closer to being accurate than not.
7) Sanders is definitely against the NSA surveillance state. Clinton has consistently voted for it and supported Obama's positions on it. Check again.
8) Both are in agreement on climate change. Check.
9) As far as affordable college goes, this one is definitely inaccurate and should be changed. Both Sanders and Clinton have a history of proposing legislation and ideas that would make college more affordable. Now to be fair, his idea is more socialist in nature in that he wants the government to cover it like it is in many European countries. Clinton has on the other hand wanted to engage private sector business leaders in making college education more affordable. I would prefer Sanders way, but I would not say she is against affordable education.
10) I addressed the minimum wage above. Sanders has both words and actions to back up his position. At this point in time, we have a recent tweet in support from Clinton but no specific positions or time-frames. So that one is nuanced but not inaccurate. Check.
11) Concerning the NDAA, the TPP, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, this is completely accurate. Sanders has been vocally consistent in his opposition to all four and has voted accordingly. Clinton has been inconsistent on the TPP (in fact rather silent) but worked on provisions during her time at State, fully supports and voted for the Iraq War, fully supports and voted for the Patriot Act renewals, and fully supports the NDAA and voted accordingly. Check, check, check and check.
12) As far as internet censorship goes, Sanders again is completely congruent in language and action including votes against such things as SOPA. Clinton has yet again been very incongruent. She has spoken out against censorship but then fully supports prosecution of Manning, Wikileaks & Asange, Snowden, and was completely behind SOPA and CISPA.
http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/12/hillary-clinton-hero-and-villain-internet/45975/ I would say that again I would give this one a qualified check because it is still closer to being accurate than not.
13) Finally, on the issue of gay marriage. This is another that I have mixed thoughts on. It is true that Sanders has been a vocal supporter of civil rights for LGBT individuals since the 1990's. He voted against DADT and DOMA. Clinton on the other hand had to evolve and did not come out strongly for gay marriage until 2013/2014. If we are saying today, do they both support it, then yes, this one is also wrong and should be corrected. If we are saying that out of the four as far as history goes, then yes, Sanders has been for these rights as long as he has been in politics, the two GOP'ers are totally against and have been, and Clinton was and is no longer.
So, no this graphic is not a huge lie. There are only two out of the seventeen that are questionable. One needs to be changed because it is completely inaccurate, and one needs to be changed because it is nuanced but not completely inaccurate. All of the rest are dead on accurate and shows the striking differences between these two Democratic candidates. There are more differences between them than there are between Clinton and the two GOP candidates on economic policies, foreign policies, and the surveillance state.
And as I argued above, these are the types of graphics that will sway low information voters who learn about candidates from Tumblr and other social networking sites. With two minor adjustments, this would be fully and completely accurate graphic for such a purpose.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And you agree the chart is factually inaccurate... yet there it is in GD.
Posted by a Democrat, in support of a politician running in the Democratic primary. The OP may in fact be that low information voter you wish to sway, since apparently they didn't even recognize the factual errors.
TM99
(8,352 posts)It is not factually inaccurate. Only one point is which could be changed. Two are nuanced but not inaccurate. The remaining points are all completely accurate.
Would I go with this one as is? No. But as a start, yes. Correct one, clarify two others, and put it out there. Social media is going to be very important again in this Presidential primary and general election. And yes, there are many low information voters. I would prefer it were otherwise but this is the reality.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)skewed hit piece on Hillary. Sanders would be mortified by this kind of idiocy.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)There are those here who will try to invalidate the entire post because of one mistake.
That is a Logical Fallacy called "Poisoning the Well"
I am going to copy your rebuttal for future use.
Thanks!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It is important to understand there is a difference between just words and action.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)(He's got my support. (And I don't mean the two loony birds on the right.))
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)When you look at where people really stand on the issuesm as opposed to parties or personalities, Americans are STRONGLY in favor of the progressive positions that Bernie (and only Bernie it seems) strongly supports.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Very one sided sort of like the negetive adds Bernie was not going to use
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)Did not know.
BumRushDaShow
(129,084 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
They_Live
(3,233 posts)to donate to his campaign. I finally feel as if there is an actual option for someone who represents people.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Looks like a fairly uneducated person wrote it - "truly supports gay marriage". HA HA.
I wish I thought you were kidding that you thought this piece of shit was good. And that you don't realize how embracing this is.
Hope BS like this doesn't backfire on Sanders.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)just invent shit. It seems to me if people had a legitimate case they would be able to make an honest, straight forward argument instead of relying on blatant distortion. It's weak and dishonest. You all seem determined to make Sanders look as bad as possible through these sorts of tactics. It's unfortunate you don't think Sanders or the country deserve better than this.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And the excuse is that Hillary looks down on voters? WTF? Is it because of disappointment Warren isn't running?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)It's people on DU who insult anyone who using a vowel or phrase they are suspicious of by calling them corporate sell outs or tools of Goldman Sachs or "turd way". They even treat liberal Democrats they agree with on 95 percent of issues as inferior. The idea that that crowd can accuse anyone else of looking down on people is ridiculous. They think associating with a Republican disqualifies someone from public office. How do you think they could possibly hope to persuade Republican voters to support their candidate when they can't bother to treat other Democrats with respect?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)have an honest conversation. A juvenile mindset has taken over. The rat fuckers must be thrilled.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)for one HRC has come out in favor of gay marriage and I think has always been in favor of raising the minimum wage.
Bernie Sanders neutral on gun control? really?
Rand Paul is against the NSA, Patriot act, and in favor of marijuana decriminalization
Cruz knows his Dr Seuss
But any serious analysis of these guys position will need to have links, roll calls on bills they voted for. A picture made by a fan boy with no way to verify the info presented shouldn't be taken seriously by any politico.
Seems like Bernie's fan boys are getting very desperate.
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)"opposes citizen united" is missing from the list. Its like someone was looking for a reason not to give a tick to HRC.
Also isn't Cruz and Paul weren't in the senate when authorization was passed but now, all 3 agree the war was a bad idea. Should they get at least a neutral for "Against the Iraq war"?
Response to aggiesal (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed