PDA

View Full Version : 15 Reasons Green Arrow Won't Support Hillary Clinton in '16



Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 01:44 PM
For @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), my record of actual political positions and actions of Hillary Clinton that I oppose, all of which are issues that I oppose and criticize male politicians for.

Reason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans.

Reason 2: Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War.

Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy.

Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations.

Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism.

Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

Reason 8: Senator Clinton again voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal in 2006.

Reason 9: Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and a separate Congressional authorization for a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Reason 10: In 2003, Senator Clinton helped outsourcing firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York.

Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration.

Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred.

Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification.

Reason 14: Secretary Clinton openly supported Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, despite the Burmese leader's abject racism toward the Rohingya people of Burma and tacit support of anti-human rights actions committed against the Rohingya minority by the Burmese government.

Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 01:47 PM
You hate women.


Lol j/k, good list though. I don't understand why she has so much liberal and/or female support.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 02:01 PM
There's nothing sexist about opposing Hillary Clinton as such or about the list of reasons provided in the OP of course. What I criticize vis-a-vis the opposition is the fact that we don't exactly see many posts like the OP concerning Hillary's candidacy. Rather, we usually tend to see character evaluations in place of the ideological ones that would applied to any other candidate running either announced or prospective. Indeed the list of positions in the OP is one I find respectable. However, I do maintain my support for the Hillary camp and aim to run through the items in the OP one-by-one a little later.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:11 PM
I don't understand how women with more than a shred of dignity can support a candidate who's husband was the biggest whoremonger in DC but his name is her political meal ticket.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 02:15 PM
Hilarys record is garbage. Their is no escaping it, especially when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties

The Xl
05-17-2015, 02:17 PM
There's nothing sexist about opposing Hillary Clinton as such or about the list of reasons provided in the OP of course. What I criticize vis-a-vis the opposition is the fact that we don't exactly see many posts like the OP concerning Hillary's candidacy. Rather, we usually tend to see character evaluations in place of the ideological ones that would applied to any other candidate running either announced or prospective. Indeed the list of positions in the OP is one I find respectable. However, I do maintain my support for the Hillary camp and aim to run through the items in the OP one-by-one a little later.
I look forward to that run through. I can't wrap my ahead around an intelligent far leftist supporting someone the likes of Hilary

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 02:24 PM
There's nothing sexist about opposing Hillary Clinton as such or about the list of reasons provided in the OP of course. What I criticize vis-a-vis the opposition is the fact that we don't exactly see many posts like the OP concerning Hillary's candidacy. Rather, we usually tend to see character evaluations in place of the ideological ones that would applied to any other candidate running either announced or prospective. Indeed the list of positions in the OP is one I find respectable. However, I do maintain my support for the Hillary camp and aim to run through the items in the OP one-by-one a little later.


My question would be - the eventual republican candidate - are their positions any different? And will they have worse positions?

No politician can please me all the time. And yes, I would prefer a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton. But against any republican who so far seems to be running, I will vote for Ms. Clinton.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 02:26 PM
My question would be - the eventual republican candidate - are their positions any different? And will they have worse positions?

No politician can please me all the time. And yes, I would prefer a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton. But against any republican who so far seems to be running, I will vote for Ms. Clinton.

That's the kind of mentality that has got us to and persisted this coke pepsi two party duopoly.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 02:27 PM
My question would be - the eventual republican candidate - are their positions any different? And will they have worse positions?

Probably not. That doesn't make Clinton's positions any more acceptable to me.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:29 PM
That's the kind of mentality that has got us to and persisted this coke pepsi two party duopoly.

Exactly.

Our buddy Mac criticizes third party voters for being responsible for teh O'bama, I think it's the opposite. Voters voting against candidates (instead of for them) is the basis for establishment.

It would be interesting to poll people to see how many vote against candidates instead of for them.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 02:32 PM
Exactly.

Our buddy Mac criticizes third party voters for being responsible for teh O'bama, I think it's the opposite. Voters voting against candidates (instead of for them) is the basis for establishment.

It would be interesting to poll people to see how many vote against candidates instead of for them.

And those same people don't even realize that more times than not, the clown they vote for out of spite is nearly identical to the candidate they despise.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 02:33 PM
And those same people don't even realize that more times than not, the clown they vote for out of spite is nearly identical to the candidate they despise.

Middle class taxes go up, deficit goes up, wars ensue, rights and liberties are lost, etc...

Same shit, different party.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 02:38 PM
Middle class taxes go up, deficit goes up, wars ensue, rights and liberties are lost, etc...

Same shit, different party.

Yep.

Just like obamney before Hilary vs Bush will amount to the same shit no matter what.

Where the fuck are the liberals who will keep us out of war? The cons who don't spend like meth heads with a gambling problem? They're not in any of these corporate owned parties.

Fuck the democrat an republican same shit duopoly, vote for someone else. Greens if you're a liberal, libertarian if your an actual conservative or libertarian, anything but these glorified republicrat prostitutes.

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 03:14 PM
I don't understand how women with more than a shred of dignity can support a candidate who's husband was the biggest whoremonger in DC but his name is her political meal ticket.

Me neither. I dated a woman way back before the wife who was like that. Staunch supporter of Bill the rapist. In all other aspects of her life, a real intellectual feminist.

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 03:15 PM
I won't vote for a typical (R) just because Hillary may be the (D) candidate. The GOP has to run a fiscal conservative if they want my vote.

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 04:05 PM
Me neither. I dated a woman way back before the wife who was like that. Staunch supporter of Bill the rapist. In all other aspects of her life, a real intellectual feminist.

If Ms. Clinton had ended the marriage, the conservatives would have been squawking that she didn't stand by her man.

She really can't win. That she worked hard to keep her marriage together is now being held against her.

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 04:14 PM
If Ms. Clinton had ended the marriage, the conservatives would have been squawking that she didn't stand by her man.

She really can't win. That she worked hard to keep her marriage together is now being held against her.

Link?

I doubt that your fears are valid. But cling to them.

I would have respected her had she dumped the rapist. But I would never vote for her. She is a Statist. It doesn't interest me.

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 04:18 PM
Link?

I doubt that your fears are valid. But cling to them.

I would have respected her had she dumped the rapist. But I would never vote for her. She is a Statist. It doesn't interest me.


No prob. I doubt she was counting on your vote.

Peter1469
05-17-2015, 04:26 PM
No prob. I doubt she was counting on your vote.

The GOP should not either. Both parties are totally corrupt.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 04:29 PM
PART ONE:

Okay, I'm gonna try this now. Before I begin though, let me make something clear about my criteria: A candidate does not have to fit my definition of perfect or even close to earn my vote. They simply have to be someone I can agree with more than all the other halfway viable candidates. Bearing this point in mind, here is my point-by-point reply to the OP:


Green Arrow wrote:
Reason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans.

The correct part of this is that she has a history of being aloof and out of touch. We could see this in her previous campaign, for example, concentrated in stuff like her answer to the debate query: "Mrs. Clinton: Diamonds or pearls?", to which she nauseatingly replied "Both" with a chuckle. I get this critique. But it's not an accurate assessment of her current attitude and politics and that's the bigger point to be taken in, methinks. For one thing, she's running her current campaign in a way totally opposite how she did in the 2008 race by announcing her candidacy in a humble way via social media rather than blowing the trumpets on national television like her rivals, she's starting off with what appears to be a halfway sincere listening tour. More importantly though, the policy ideas she's advancing fall into what Howard Dean has described as those of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", i.e. the more anti-Wall-Street wing that today dominates the Democratic Party in the post-crash era. Given that the Clintons have a reputation for being Wall Street Democrats, it struck me as truly significant that on day one of her campaign, the first policy positions she announced were a proposal to raise the taxes of hedge fund managers and a constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics. Those aren't the kinds of stances you launch your campaign with if you're hoping to win the support of Goldman Sachs, you know?

We could go on and on concerning Hillary's conversion to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party of late: From her defense of the French Socialist economist Thomas Piketty (author of the quasi-Marxist piece Capital in the 21st Century) to her editorial piece for Time magazine explaining how Elizabeth Warren's actions have impacted her own worldview to her decision to hire Gary Gensler (co-creator of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission together with Elizabeth Warren) as her campaign finance manager, the signs are there. The head of The Nation magazine, which has always represented the Democratic Party's more populist wing, has stated that there is "no separation" between their views and the fundamental policies Hillary is campaigning on. Howard Dean is in the Hillary camp. This ain't 2008. This is a modern, progressive Hillary Clinton we are looking at today; one who is on board with economic populism.

I wouldn't be interested in voting for another Democratic Leadership Council, neoliberal centrist type candidate like Hillary used to be, but in this campaign those candidates will be the likes of Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee: ex-Republicans now relegated to the margins of the Democratic Party since the 2008 crash. Hillary is now in the progressive camp.


Reason 2: Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War.

True, but she has also never supported the war even though her initial vote helped enable it. I remember quite vividly that the day the Iraq War actually began, Hillary made a speech opposing the president's decision to go to war. That wasn't an easy position to take at the time: some 75% of Americans supported George W. Bush's decision at that moment in our history if our polling data on the subject is to be believed. She has explained this seeming contradiction many times over the years: She voted to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq based upon the presumption that he could prove that Saddam was, in fact, stockpiling WMDs. She expected that Bush would allow the UN weapons inspections to go through and verify his administration's claims about Saddam before any invasion, in other words; she presumed that he knew what he was talking about and that he was acting in good faith. But he wasn't. And going through the years, this position on her part vis-a-vis Iraq remained consistent. At the start of her first presidential campaign in early 2007, she proposed a troop withdrawal timetable similar to the one that Bush would eventually be forced into accepting by the new leader of Iraq to sign onto more than a year and a half later and which President Obama would subsequently carry out. And to this day, she has stated opposition to sending more troops back into Iraq. So yes, while her initial vote on the subject of Iraq was a poor one, the significance thereof is wildly exaggerated by her critics methinks.


Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy.

Not any more than Obama's. Not in her current electoral platform, that is. She's fully supportive of the current diplomatic negotiations with Cuba and Iran and opposed to sending more troops into Iraq, for example. That's more than one can say for even the so-called libertarian peaceniks on the Republican side of the aisle like Rand Paul!


Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I hadn't heard that before! Do you have a link?


Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations.

True enough! I never said she was perfect. However, she has also embraced the calls of the workers striking against low-paying companies like Walmart in advocating for raising the minimum wage. Now to a full living wage of $15 an hour, you might ask? She has not yet committed to that particularity, but therein lies a perfect example of the value of her having to compete against someone like Bernie Sanders in the primaries because HE is and my hope is that just by competing with her for votes in that area, it will help push her into committing to not ONLY a minimum wage hike, but to advancing a full living wage specifically. I hope that she will.


Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism.

I'm with you on this one.


Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

I'm with you on this one as well, but with more nuance. The Patriot Act is a wartime policy. Therefore, the fact that Hillary, like Obama, is advancing a diplomacy-centered foreign policy...that's the kind of thing that moves us toward ending our state of war and thus objectively toward the end of that policy. The main thing in this connection hence is to move toward ending the imperialist so-called global war on terrorism. The entire Republican field favors moving in the exact opposite direction, toward less diplomacy, a larger army, and more military "solutions".


Reason 8: Senator Clinton again voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal in 2006.

This is a duplicate critique, so I'll just refer you to my remarks above.


Reason 9: Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and a separate Congressional authorization for a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

This is another duplicate critique. See my reply to Reason 2.


Reason 10: In 2003, Senator Clinton helped outsourcing firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York.

See my reply to Reason 1.


Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration.

See my reply to reason 1 with the additional note that most every politician did as well, including the current president. As much did not cause Wall Street to support Obama's re-election bid though since he signed the new Dodd-Frank financial regulation regime in 2010. Hillary Clinton is also a full supporter of that legislation.


Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred.

I partially disagree. While the United States definitely didn't abandon imperialism as I would have it -- as in closing all our foreign military bases around the world, as well as all CIA Embassies, the CIA itself, shutting down NATO, and so forth (there's a shock!), there was in general a shift on the diplomatic front toward rather more openness. For example, there was something of a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia on Hillary's watch that was well-concentrated in the deal struck in late 2010 wherein both our countries agreed to reduce our existing nuclear stockpiles by one-third. Now consider how relations with Russia have, by contrast, soured...a lot...under her successor's watch. Just as an example.


Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification.

Though it proved quite a popular decision in this country, I'm with you on this one.


Reason 14: Secretary Clinton openly supported Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, despite the Burmese leader's abject racism toward the Rohingya people of Burma and tacit support of anti-human rights actions committed against the Rohingya minority by the Burmese government.

Here's the English translation of that preposterous objection: Hillary is guilty of favoring the genuinely persecuted pro-democratic side of Myanmar's struggle against its late decades-long military dictatorship.


Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration.

Again, I am with you here, though again it should be noted that pretty much all elected politicians in this country take that position as a baseline, i.e. the alternative in the Republican camp is not better.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 04:29 PM
PART TWO:

Now that we've gone through the list of objections one-by-one...let's get into some other things because I couldn't help but notice that your list of criticisms was quite one-sidedly focused on military/diplomatic politics and not so much on anything else. Let's branch out and cover the issues more comprehensively for a moment. Here are some of the platform positions that Hillary is currently running on:

1) Constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics.

2) Raise taxes on hedge fund managers.

3) Raise the minimum wage.

4) Free community college.

5) Paid family leave.

6) Criminal justice reform.

7) Highly pro-immigrant: Comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. path to full citizenship), with a stated readiness to expand President Obama's executive order Dream Act unilaterally if no bill with a path to citizenship for the nation's existing pool of undocumented immigrants is passed in a timely matter. And supports allowing undocumented migrants applying for driver's licenses.

8) Legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

9) On abortion rights: Pro-choice.

10) Supports assault weapons ban and universal background checks for gun purchases.

11) Supports Obama's normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

12) Supports current nuclear/sanctions negotiations with Iran.

13) Opposes sending more troops into Iraq.

Not all that bad relative to the competition when you take it all into account and put it in perspective, is it? And it's not over. She'll have to stake out positions on many more issues before the campaign season is over.

Now you may be asking yourself "What about Bernie Sanders? Isn't his line of economic populism a stronger one?" Well yes it is...but actually that's part of his problem with me. You see, at a fundamental level, Hillary and Bernie agree on most issues. Their differences are mostly just a matter of degrees. For example, both favor cracking down harder on Wall Street: Hillary wants to tax Wall Street at higher rates while Bernie wants to break up the banks. That sort of thing. If those sorts of distinctions were the only differences between the platforms of Hillary and Bernie, I'd support Bernie because I too prefer that stronger dose of economic populism that no business corporation is gonna be willing to support! But it's not the only distinction. There is one stance that Bernie has staked out that I am fundamentally opposed to: isolationism. Sanders is advocating a trade war policy that calls for scrapping all existing trade deals from the last 20 years and furthermore for cutting off diplomatic relations with China altogether. That stance is alarmingly similar to the ones I hear being advanced by the likes of quasi-fascists Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. Globalization is one of the remaining positive good things about capitalism in my opinion. Since the end of the Cold War, the advent of increasingly global trade, together with correspond mass migration of workers from rural to urban areas, has borne out history's most rapid reduction of global poverty and, believe it or not, wealth inequality. That's right: the principal form of wealth inequality is not that WITHIN nations, but that BETWEEN nations and globalization moves the world progressively away from the First World / Third World polarization toward what we might call a universal Second World status. Thus are laboring people increasingly becoming truly one global class with a shared consciousness and interests for the first time in history as Marx might have wished, though not in the way he envisioned. Opposing globablization, which includes the free movement of both capital and labor worldwide, is, in my view, logically analogous to opposing equal pay. It's a big deal, and it's made bigger by the fact that any new Democratic president will likely be met by a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress. Under such a situation, things like trade policy will be among the few things such a president will actually be able to affect! Maybe I ought to put this into sharper relief though: The trade policy (or, more correctly, non-trade policy) that Sanders advocates would send the world economy spiraling back into recession and produce an economic depression here the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1930s. It's a BIG deal. Our future trade deals should include more protections for workers and the environment than those in the past have, but starting a trade war is not the answer. That's just a national chauvinist policy approach. The fact that Hillary has staked out no such position is really the decisive reason why I'm currently favoring her over Bernie.

Another, smaller reason I favor Hillary over Bernie at present is the degree to which the former prioritizes a closing of the gender gap, regularly advancing policy proposals like paid family leave that would go a really long way toward closing the income gap between men and women in this country. Though Bernie has a stellar voting record on these issues, I haven't yet seen Bernie talk about such matters, which tells me that they wouldn't be very high priorities for him as president. (Not that he'll ever be president.) I feel that this is an area that's been too neglected for too long. It will be important to me in this election, not an afterthought.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 04:35 PM
4) Free community college.

:BangHead:

Please stop saying "Free."

It's not "free," just like Obamacare wasn't "free." It's paid for by the taxpayers, meaning everybody except the freeloaders that wish to benefit from it.

IMPress Polly
05-17-2015, 04:37 PM
You know what I mean when I say that, GC. Free as in students get free tuition and books. Yes people still have to pay taxes though. :rollseyes:

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 04:40 PM
You know what I mean when I say that, GC. Free as in students get free tuition and books. Yes people still have to pay taxes though. :rollseyes:

And then those taxes go to people that didn't earn them, from people that did earn them (not the government elites you love, but the working class, I mean).

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 04:42 PM
Actually I have issues with every policy you listed. She's a crazed hardcore leftist like the president. Fuck it. I can't believe anyone would support such idiocy. I'm going longboarding.

GrassrootsConservative
05-17-2015, 04:43 PM
Raise taxes on the working class and hand it out to other people. Take away freedoms and rights. Continued foreign policy failures. Wonderful platform, Hillary.

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 04:48 PM
And then those taxes go to people that didn't earn them, from people that did earn them (not the government elites you love, but the working class, I mean).


And in the case of community college, will be returned in multiple times because the kids should get better jobs with higher pay and thus pay more taxes. It's an investment, not a charity program.

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 04:49 PM
PART TWO:

Now that we've gone through the list of objections one-by-one...let's get into some other things because I couldn't help but notice that your list of criticisms was quite one-sidedly focused on military/diplomatic politics and not so much on anything else. Let's branch out and cover the issues more comprehensively for a moment. Here are some of the platform positions that Hillary is currently running on:

1) Constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics.

2) Raise taxes on hedge fund managers.

3) Raise the minimum wage.

4) Free community college.

5) Paid family leave.

6) Criminal justice reform.

7) Highly pro-immigrant: Comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. path to full citizenship), with a stated readiness to expand President Obama's executive order Dream Act unilaterally if no bill with a path to citizenship for the nation's existing pool of undocumented immigrants is passed in a timely matter. And supports allowing undocumented migrants applying for driver's licenses.

8) Legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

9) On abortion rights: Pro-choice.

10) Supports assault weapons ban and universal background checks for gun purchases.

11) Supports Obama's normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

12) Supports current nuclear/sanctions negotiations with Iran.

13) Opposes sending more troops into Iraq.



Thanks for this list. I don't see any of the current republican candidates supporting most of this list.

damn, you're a good poster. Do you have a blog I should be reading?

The Xl
05-17-2015, 04:55 PM
This could get good. I'll chime in with a response in a couple of hours after I get done busting some fools ass on the basketball court

Redrose
05-17-2015, 04:57 PM
For @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), my record of actual political positions and actions of Hillary Clinton that I oppose, all of which are issues that I oppose and criticize male politicians for.

Reason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans.

Reason 2: Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War.

Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy.

Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations.

Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism.

Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

Reason 8: Senator Clinton again voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal in 2006.

Reason 9: Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and a separate Congressional authorization for a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Reason 10: In 2003, Senator Clinton helped outsourcing firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York.

Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration.

Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred.

Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification.

Reason 14: Secretary Clinton openly supported Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, despite the Burmese leader's abject racism toward the Rohingya people of Burma and tacit support of anti-human rights actions committed against the Rohingya minority by the Burmese government.

Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration.



#13. I frankly don't give a hoot about not having Pakistan's approval for that raid. Pakistan obvioiusly knew he was hiding there. Had we notified Pakistan, they might have let Bin Laden know, and he'd still be out there. All is fair in love and war.

Pakistan was supposed to be our ally. I'm glad we shafted them.

Captain Obvious
05-17-2015, 05:03 PM
This could get good. I'll chime in with a response in a couple of hours after I get done busting some fools ass on the basketball court

Agreed

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 05:58 PM
Before I begin though, let me make something clear about my criteria: A candidate does not have to fit my definition of perfect or even close to earn my vote. They simply have to be someone I can agree with more than all the other halfway viable candidates. Bearing this point in mind, here is my point-by-point reply to the OP:

That's fair. Let's also keep in mind with my responses and my main criteria that I do not agree with that mentality. I am not a one-issue voter, nor am I a partisan. I look at candidates based on their policy positions in each of the different policy arenas. If I find most or all of their positions damaging and dangerous in even just one of those arenas, I will reject the candidate. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy positions are diametrically opposed to my own beliefs on the issues, so she does not pass the test.

That said, this doesn't mean that in a general election scenario I would necessarily vote for the Republican. There are, like, two currently floated Republicans that I could even consider voting for, so I'll likely end up voting third party this time.


The correct part of this is that she has a history of being aloof and out of touch. We could see this in her previous campaign, for example, concentrated in stuff like her answer to the debate query: "Mrs. Clinton: Diamonds or pearls?", to which she nauseatingly replied "Both" with a chuckle. I get this critique. But it's not an accurate assessment of her current attitude and politics and that's the bigger point to be taken in, methinks. For one thing, she's running her current campaign in a way totally opposite how she did in the 2008 race by announcing her candidacy in a humble way via social media rather than blowing the trumpets on national television like her rivals, she's starting off with what appears to be a halfway sincere listening tour. More importantly though, the policy ideas she's advancing fall into what Howard Dean has described as those of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", i.e. the more anti-Wall-Street wing that today dominates the Democratic Party in the post-crash era. Given that the Clintons have a reputation for being Wall Street Democrats, it struck me as truly significant that on day one of her campaign, the first policy positions she announced were a proposal to raise the taxes of hedge fund managers and a constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics. Those aren't the kinds of stances you launch your campaign with if you're hoping to win the support of Goldman Sachs, you know?

We could go on and on concerning Hillary's conversion to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party of late: From her defense of the French Socialist economist Thomas Piketty (author of the quasi-Marxist piece Capital in the 21st Century) to her editorial piece for Time magazine explaining how Elizabeth Warren's actions have impacted her own worldview to her decision to hire Gary Gensler (co-creator of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission together with Elizabeth Warren) as her campaign finance manager, the signs are there. The head of The Nation magazine, which has always represented the Democratic Party's more populist wing, has stated that there is "no separation" between their views and the fundamental policies Hillary is campaigning on. Howard Dean is in the Hillary camp. This ain't 2008. This is a modern, progressive Hillary Clinton we are looking at today; one who is on board with economic populism.

I wouldn't be interested in voting for another Democratic Leadership Council, neoliberal centrist type candidate like Hillary used to be, but in this campaign those candidates will be the likes of Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee: ex-Republicans now relegated to the margins of the Democratic Party since the 2008 crash. Hillary is now in the progressive camp.

That is valid. My question is...are we really seeing a different Hillary, or are we just seeing the same old Hillary that is advocating popular positions solely to win election? Let's not forget President Barack Obama is very different from Candidate Barack Obama, and it was only just a few months ago that Hillary was calling herself "dead broke" while raking in millions of dollars just for giving speeches. It leaves me skeptical that she is actually a different person than she was eight years ago.


True, but she has also never supported the war even though her initial vote helped enable it. I remember quite vividly that the day the Iraq War actually began, Hillary made a speech opposing the president's decision to go to war. That wasn't an easy position to take at the time: some 75% of Americans supported George W. Bush's decision at that moment in our history if our polling data on the subject is to be believed. She has explained this seeming contradiction many times over the years: She voted to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq based upon the presumption that he could prove that Saddam was, in fact, stockpiling WMDs. She expected that Bush would allow the UN weapons inspections to go through and verify his administration's claims about Saddam before any invasion, in other words; she presumed that he knew what he was talking about and that he was acting in good faith. But he wasn't. And going through the years, this position on her part vis-a-vis Iraq remained consistent. At the start of her first presidential campaign in early 2007, she proposed a troop withdrawal timetable similar to the one that Bush would eventually be forced into accepting by the new leader of Iraq to sign onto more than a year and a half later and which President Obama would subsequently carry out. And to this day, she has stated opposition to sending more troops back into Iraq. So yes, while her initial vote on the subject of Iraq was a poor one, the significance thereof is wildly exaggerated by her critics methinks.

My perspective is if you vote to permit the war, you don't get to turn around and oppose it right after voting for it. To me, that's just being political. There were plenty of politicians that ACTUALLY opposed the war and showed that opposition by voting against it. She's not one of them. Further, as I mentioned in a later reason, amendments were brought to the table that would have made the Iraq War much, MUCH more palatable (though I still oppose it in principle) and would have put much more congressional oversight over the whole thing, but she voted against such amendments.

These factors brought together all make her opposition suspect to me.


Not any more than Obama's. Not in her current electoral platform, that is. She's fully supportive of the current diplomatic negotiations with Cuba and Iran and opposed to sending more troops into Iraq, for example. That's more than one can say for even the so-called libertarian peaceniks on the Republican side of the aisle like Rand Paul!

Her foreign policy is roughly as interventionist as President Obama's, true, and it's one of many reasons I also oppose the president's foreign policy. In fact, in a lot of ways, I feel like she pushed the president's administration into becoming even more interventionist during her time as Secretary of State.

Let me be clear, I am not 100% categorically opposed to intervention. I belong to an ideological camp on foreign policy issues that takes a more rational approach between interventionism and isolationism. Some intervention is, indeed, warranted and just. My issue with the president, with Hillary Clinton, and with darn near all of the Republican candidates is that they are interventionist to the extreme, in many ways that are not only not warranted and unjust, but downright dangerous to the peace and security of the U.S.


I hadn't heard that before! Do you have a link?

This is the best I could find for now (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-has-a-keystone-xl-catch-22/), I'll keep trying to locate the articles I read back in the middle of last year. Basically, she was trying to find a way at the State Department to approve the pipeline without pissing off environmentalists.

On a slightly different but still important policy note, Mother Jones, by no means an anti-Hillary conservative mouthpiece, accuses her of being instrumental in the rise of fracking (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron).


True enough! I never said she was perfect. However, she has also embraced the calls of the workers striking against low-paying companies like Walmart in advocating for raising the minimum wage. Now to a full living wage of $15 an hour, you might ask? She has not yet committed to that particularity, but therein lies a perfect example of the value of her having to compete against someone like Bernie Sanders in the primaries because HE is and my hope is that just by competing with her for votes in that area, it will help push her into committing to not ONLY a minimum wage hike, but to advancing a full living wage specifically. I hope that she will.

My problem there is, again, with the sincerity. It doesn't matter much to me if a fight with Sen. Sanders makes her pick up more progressive rhetoric on that issue or others, because all that means is that she's advocating another popular position purely to win votes. It doesn't mean she actually believes it or that she'll fight for those issues once she's in power. President Obama was elected as a pretty strong anti-war candidate with a great record on civil liberties, but his administration has been just as bad as the Bush administration on both issues. Worse, in some cases, as drone strikes increased by over 500% under President Obama.


I'm with you on this one as well, but with more nuance. The Patriot Act is a wartime policy. Therefore, the fact that Hillary, like Obama, is advancing a diplomacy-centered foreign policy...that's the kind of thing that moves us toward ending our state of war and thus objectively toward the end of that policy. The main thing in this connection hence is to move toward ending the imperialist so-called global war on terrorism. The entire Republican field favors moving in the exact opposite direction, toward less diplomacy, a larger army, and more military "solutions".

But again, since promising a more diplomacy-centered foreign policy, we've used our military to aid in the overthrow of Gaddaffi in Libya and, as a result, totally destroyed the country. The Houthi rebels in Yemen have seized on our aid and destabilized what had been a stable Islamic country (rare these days). We have progressively weakened Assad's position in Syria. We are very close to arming Ukraine against Russia.

There's not really anything we can point to as a successful diplomatic effort without also pointing to foreign policy as usual. Meanwhile, we're basically being forced into returning our military to Iraq and we're still not out of Afghanistan.


See my reply to reason 1 with the additional note that most every politician did as well, including the current president. As much did not cause Wall Street to support Obama's re-election bid though since he signed the new Dodd-Frank financial regulation regime in 2010. Hillary Clinton is also a full supporter of that legislation.

Except Wall Street did support President Obama's re-election. Granted, they didn't support President Obama quite as much as they supported Mitt Romney, but the fact that their support was even divided at all between the two candidates should give us all pause.


I partially disagree. While the United States definitely didn't abandon imperialism as I would have it -- as in closing all our foreign military bases around the world, as well as all CIA Embassies, the CIA itself, shutting down NATO, and so forth (there's a shock!), there was in general a shift on the diplomatic front toward rather more openness. For example, there was something of a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia on Hillary's watch that was well-concentrated in the deal struck in late 2010 wherein both our countries agreed to reduce our existing nuclear stockpiles by one-third. Now consider how relations with Russia have, by contrast, soured...a lot...under her successor's watch. Just as an example.

I don't disagree with that, necessarily. I'm on the record complimenting the president on a number of diplomatic efforts. I support his normalization of our relations with Cuba, I support a nuclear deal with Iran, and I support a greater diplomatic effort in the Middle East and Asia. And I will compliment Hillary Clinton in that she was leaps and bounds a better Secretary of State than John Kerry, who has been an epic disappointment to me.

I just meant that we are still largely doing the same things we've always done. Adding a little diplomacy to that isn't a change in direction, it's just one step forward and two steps back.


Though it proved quite a popular decision in this country, I'm with you on this one.

I'm not opposed to taking care of OBL, and I do applaud her for showing strong leadership in being the one to take point and get everyone else to agree to taking him out. I just don't see it as very diplomatic to violate Pakistan's sovereignty as we did with no regard to Pakistani lives and just went ahead with what we wanted to do. We should have at LEAST told the Pakistani government, "Look, guys, this is happening, we'll make it up to you later."


Here's the English translation of that preposterous objection: Hillary is guilty of favoring the genuinely persecuted pro-democratic side of Myanmar's struggle against its late decades-long military dictatorship.

That's valid, but I don't feel like we can ignore the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi is a flaming racist where the Rohingya people are concerned and we should not overlook that or ignore it. You think Republican positions on immigration, legal or otherwise, are objectionable, Aung San Suu Kyi is even worse. Just replace Mexicans with Rohingya, and rather than there being actual immigration involved, the Rohingya are native Burmese people.


Again, I am with you here, though again it should be noted that pretty much all elected politicians in this country take that position as a baseline, i.e. the alternative in the Republican camp is not better.

Yep, I've been saying that the Syrian Civil War would only end with our government helping to oust Assad since the SCW began. When ISIL broke out onto the scene, I said we would use ISIL's rise as an excuse to depose Assad. So far, our government on both sides is proving me correct on both accounts, which is an epic disappointment. It's times like these that I WANT to be wrong, but they won't let me.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 05:59 PM
I'll get to part 2 later. I have some Star Wars: The Old Republic to play.

The Xl
05-17-2015, 06:36 PM
I'm not going to be on a computer for another hour or so, but it should be noted that much of what she said and is campaigning on, her approach, all that jazz, is meaningless pandering. What matters is her record

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 06:46 PM
#13. I frankly don't give a hoot about not having Pakistan's approval for that raid. Pakistan obvioiusly knew he was hiding there. Had we notified Pakistan, they might have let Bin Laden know, and he'd still be out there. All is fair in love and war.

Pakistan was supposed to be our ally. I'm glad we shafted them.


I agree with you on this one.

Bob
05-17-2015, 06:49 PM
My question would be - the eventual republican candidate - are their positions any different? And will they have worse positions?

No politician can please me all the time. And yes, I would prefer a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton. But against any republican who so far seems to be running, I will vote for Ms. Clinton.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH25ced4FrM

PattyHill
05-17-2015, 06:58 PM
T
That said, this doesn't mean that in a general election scenario I would necessarily vote for the Republican. There are, like, two currently floated Republicans that I could even consider voting for, so I'll likely end up voting third party this time.



.

That's fine. For me, the republicans who seem to be in the running are, to me, so "yuck" in their positions ("yuck" is my technical term) that I won't risk that my vote will end up with them winning. So I will vote for Ms. Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee because the alternative is no better on foreign policy and worse on domestic policies.

And I do admire a lot about Ms. Clinton. I liked her as first lady, as senator, and was happy she was secretary of state. Even if she is too neo-con for me on foreign policy, she's a sharp woman; she knows how Washington works; and she will protect the safety net and similar progressive initiatives a lot better than the Republicans will.

I shudder to think what would happen if the Repubs took over not just the house and the senate, but also the presidency. Of course, in Florida -where they have the house, senate and governorship - they are not doing too well - but I don't want to risk it.

Mr. Right
05-17-2015, 09:18 PM
My question would be - the eventual republican candidate - are their positions any different? And will they have worse positions?

No politician can please me all the time. And yes, I would prefer a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton. But against any republican who so far seems to be running, I will vote for Ms. Clinton.


Socialist Bernie Sanders? What do others have that you need?

Tahuyaman
05-17-2015, 09:24 PM
Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations.



I'm not going to support her, but what's wrong with either of those things?

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 09:48 PM
I'm not going to support her, but what's wrong with either of those things?

The Keystone XL pipeline is a great deal for Canada. Not so much for the US.

I don't want anybody in government with such close and personal connections to big businesses.

Tahuyaman
05-17-2015, 09:53 PM
The Keystone XL pipeline is a great deal for Canada. Not so much for the US.

I don't want anybody in government with such close and personal connections to big businesses.

It's a good deal for both. Nothing wrong with that.

I see nothing wrong with government removing obstacles allowing business big and small to be more successful.

Green Arrow
05-17-2015, 11:08 PM
It's a good deal for both. Nothing wrong with that.

I see nothing wrong with government removing obstacles allowing business big and small to be more successful.

Good. It's important to take stands you believe in.

Tahuyaman
05-17-2015, 11:11 PM
Good. It's important to take stands you believe in.

The stances I take result in progress. Unlike those taken by people who claim to be progressives.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 12:40 AM
Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration.

of all the valid reasons to oppose Billary this one is very queer.

Assad is a dictator not a democratically elected leader of Syria.

But overall I agree with the conclusion that she must never be president.

The Xl
05-18-2015, 01:26 AM
The correct part of this is that she has a history of being aloof and out of touch. We could see this in her previous campaign, for example, concentrated in stuff like her answer to the debate query: "Mrs. Clinton: Diamonds or pearls?", to which she nauseatingly replied "Both" with a chuckle. I get this critique. But it's not an accurate assessment of her current attitude and politics and that's the bigger point to be taken in, methinks. For one thing, she's running her current campaign in a way totally opposite how she did in the 2008 race by announcing her candidacy in a humble way via social media rather than blowing the trumpets on national television like her rivals, she's starting off with what appears to be a halfway sincere listening tour. More importantly though, the policy ideas she's advancing fall into what Howard Dean has described as those of "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", i.e. the more anti-Wall-Street wing that today dominates the Democratic Party in the post-crash era. Given that the Clintons have a reputation for being Wall Street Democrats, it struck me as truly significant that on day one of her campaign, the first policy positions she announced were a proposal to raise the taxes of hedge fund managers and a constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics. Those aren't the kinds of stances you launch your campaign with if you're hoping to win the support of Goldman Sachs, you know?


That's all presentation, it's politics. She knows her best path to victory is shedding her establishment label, trying a more "liberal" approach. Nothing suggests that she's actually any different, she's playing the game. It's no different than how Obama won in 08, and then turned around and governed like an establishment corporatist.



True, but she has also never supported the war even though her initial vote helped enable it. I remember quite vividly that the day the Iraq War actually began, Hillary made a speech opposing the president's decision to go to war. That wasn't an easy position to take at the time: some 75% of Americans supported George W. Bush's decision at that moment in our history if our polling data on the subject is to be believed. She has explained this seeming contradiction many times over the years: She voted to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq based upon the presumption that he could prove that Saddam was, in fact, stockpiling WMDs. She expected that Bush would allow the UN weapons inspections to go through and verify his administration's claims about Saddam before any invasion, in other words; she presumed that he knew what he was talking about and that he was acting in good faith. But he wasn't. And going through the years, this position on her part vis-a-vis Iraq remained consistent. At the start of her first presidential campaign in early 2007, she proposed a troop withdrawal timetable similar to the one that Bush would eventually be forced into accepting by the new leader of Iraq to sign onto more than a year and a half later and which President Obama would subsequently carry out. And to this day, she has stated opposition to sending more troops back into Iraq. So yes, while her initial vote on the subject of Iraq was a poor one, the significance thereof is wildly exaggerated by her critics methinks.

That's playing both sides of the fence, it's an easy cop out. At the end of the day, she supported it, her vague caveat followed by silence was politics, allowed her to play either side depending on how the war panned out. The war is on her, she can't escape, it's on her record. She might have some sort of out if she generally was pro peace, but she's been a hawk otherwise, she wanted to escalate the Afghanistan war, supported action in Syria and Libya, etc. She's an interventionist hawk, that's who she is, it's in her DNA.


Not any more than Obama's. Not in her current electoral platform, that is. She's fully supportive of the current diplomatic negotiations with Cuba and Iran and opposed to sending more troops into Iraq, for example. That's more than one can say for even the so-called libertarian peaceniks on the Republican side of the aisle like Rand Paul!

Rand Paul is to libertarianism what McDonalds is to food, so that's not saying much. In any case, I'd argue that she'd probably be a more hawkish President than Obama, but even if she was merely around his level, that's around the same level as the Neocons more or less, far too much for an alleged liberal.


True enough! I never said she was perfect. However, she has also embraced the calls of the workers striking against low-paying companies like Walmart in advocating for raising the minimum wage. Now to a full living wage of $15 an hour, you might ask? She has not yet committed to that particularity, but therein lies a perfect example of the value of her having to compete against someone like Bernie Sanders in the primaries because HE is and my hope is that just by competing with her for votes in that area, it will help push her into committing to not ONLY a minimum wage hike, but to advancing a full living wage specifically. I hope that she will.

This is another example of Hilary playing the game in an attempt to appear more liberal as she tries to win the Democratic nomination.


I'm with you on this one as well, but with more nuance. The Patriot Act is a wartime policy. Therefore, the fact that Hillary, like Obama, is advancing a diplomacy-centered foreign policy...that's the kind of thing that moves us toward ending our state of war and thus objectively toward the end of that policy. The main thing in this connection hence is to move toward ending the imperialist so-called global war on terrorism. The entire Republican field favors moving in the exact opposite direction, toward less diplomacy, a larger army, and more military "solutions".

Nothing suggests that we're going to change our interventionist foreign policy anytime soon, so it would be safe to say that the status quo will reign, and therefore Hilarys support of the Patriot Act will persist.


I partially disagree. While the United States definitely didn't abandon imperialism as I would have it -- as in closing all our foreign military bases around the world, as well as all CIA Embassies, the CIA itself, shutting down NATO, and so forth (there's a shock!), there was in general a shift on the diplomatic front toward rather more openness. For example, there was something of a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia on Hillary's watch that was well-concentrated in the deal struck in late 2010 wherein both our countries agreed to reduce our existing nuclear stockpiles by one-third. Now consider how relations with Russia have, by contrast, soured...a lot...under her successor's watch. Just as an example.

This is the equivalent of putting a band aid on a wound caused by a short range shotgun blast.

The Xl
05-18-2015, 01:37 AM
PART TWO:

Now that we've gone through the list of objections one-by-one...let's get into some other things because I couldn't help but notice that your list of criticisms was quite one-sidedly focused on military/diplomatic politics and not so much on anything else. Let's branch out and cover the issues more comprehensively for a moment. Here are some of the platform positions that Hillary is currently running on:

1) Constitutional amendment to get dark money out of politics.

2) Raise taxes on hedge fund managers.

3) Raise the minimum wage.

4) Free community college.

5) Paid family leave.

6) Criminal justice reform.

7) Highly pro-immigrant: Comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. path to full citizenship), with a stated readiness to expand President Obama's executive order Dream Act unilaterally if no bill with a path to citizenship for the nation's existing pool of undocumented immigrants is passed in a timely matter. And supports allowing undocumented migrants applying for driver's licenses.

8) Legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

9) On abortion rights: Pro-choice.

10) Supports assault weapons ban and universal background checks for gun purchases.

11) Supports Obama's normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba.

12) Supports current nuclear/sanctions negotiations with Iran.

13) Opposes sending more troops into Iraq.

Not all that bad relative to the competition when you take it all into account and put it in perspective, is it? And it's not over. She'll have to stake out positions on many more issues before the campaign season is over.

Now you may be asking yourself "What about Bernie Sanders? Isn't his line of economic populism a stronger one?" Well yes it is...but actually that's part of his problem with me. You see, at a fundamental level, Hillary and Bernie agree on most issues. Their differences are mostly just a matter of degrees. For example, both favor cracking down harder on Wall Street: Hillary wants to tax Wall Street at higher rates while Bernie wants to break up the banks. That sort of thing. If those sorts of distinctions were the only differences between the platforms of Hillary and Bernie, I'd support Bernie because I too prefer that stronger dose of economic populism that no business corporation is gonna be willing to support! But it's not the only distinction. There is one stance that Bernie has staked out that I am fundamentally opposed to: isolationism. Sanders is advocating a trade war policy that calls for scrapping all existing trade deals from the last 20 years and furthermore for cutting off diplomatic relations with China altogether. That stance is alarmingly similar to the ones I hear being advanced by the likes of quasi-fascists Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. Globalization is one of the remaining positive good things about capitalism in my opinion. Since the end of the Cold War, the advent of increasingly global trade, together with correspond mass migration of workers from rural to urban areas, has borne out history's most rapid reduction of global poverty and, believe it or not, wealth inequality. That's right: the principal form of wealth inequality is not that WITHIN nations, but that BETWEEN nations and globalization moves the world progressively away from the First World / Third World polarization toward what we might call a universal Second World status. Thus are laboring people increasingly becoming truly one global class with a shared consciousness and interests for the first time in history as Marx might have wished, though not in the way he envisioned. Opposing globablization, which includes the free movement of both capital and labor worldwide, is, in my view, logically analogous to opposing equal pay. It's a big deal, and it's made bigger by the fact that any new Democratic president will likely be met by a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress. Under such a situation, things like trade policy will be among the few things such a president will actually be able to affect! Maybe I ought to put this into sharper relief though: The trade policy (or, more correctly, non-trade policy) that Sanders advocates would send the world economy spiraling back into recession and produce an economic depression here the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1930s. It's a BIG deal. Our future trade deals should include more protections for workers and the environment than those in the past have, but starting a trade war is not the answer. That's just a national chauvinist policy approach. The fact that Hillary has staked out no such position is really the decisive reason why I'm currently favoring her over Bernie.

Another, smaller reason I favor Hillary over Bernie at present is the degree to which the former prioritizes a closing of the gender gap, regularly advancing policy proposals like paid family leave that would go a really long way toward closing the income gap between men and women in this country. Though Bernie has a stellar voting record on these issues, I haven't yet seen Bernie talk about such matters, which tells me that they wouldn't be very high priorities for him as president. (Not that he'll ever be president.) I feel that this is an area that's been too neglected for too long. It will be important to me in this election, not an afterthought.

Why are you taking her at her word, especially when she has an incentive to tell you what you want to hear? After all, she's running for President, and this is why she's doing what she's doing, she knows she needs to change up her rhetoric and appeal to those more liberal and beyond, like yourself, and it seems to be working to some degree.

Getting dark money out of politics? Yeah right, good luck with that one. That's how all these campaigns are funded, including Hilarys. That's how you know she's full of it there.

Raises the minimum wage and free community college? Sounds like Obama-esque pandering to me, and nothing in her record suggests she'd move to accomplish either.

Immigration reform? Highly unlikely, the left and the right always like to jerk that one around, and neither wind up tackling it, and for a reason. Both sides love the cheap labor that illegal workers provide, both sides do work for big corporations, after all.

Criminal justice reform? I'd certainly support that, but it's a vague stance without elaboration and generally sounds like pandering to the poor and minorities.

Point being, much of what she's saying doesn't really reflect her record, it has no substance, it's generally pandering, much like how Obama pandered his way to victory in 08. Difference being, he got away with it being a relative neophyte both as a public figure and a politician, no one knew much about him then and it worked to his advantage. Everyone knows about Hilary and her record.

The Xl
05-18-2015, 01:44 AM
#13. I frankly don't give a hoot about not having Pakistan's approval for that raid. Pakistan obvioiusly knew he was hiding there. Had we notified Pakistan, they might have let Bin Laden know, and he'd still be out there. All is fair in love and war.

Pakistan was supposed to be our ally. I'm glad we shafted them.

Conjecture, and you and many others collective heads would have exploded if the tables were turned and another country did that on our soil, regardless of the circumstances.

At some point the double standard needs to end, and we need to treat everyone else the way we demand to be treated and respect their sovereignty. That's a reason why many don't like us, we do whatever the fuck we want, and then we scream bloody murder when something minute happens in return, and God forbid something like the Osama assassination happened on our soil via another country. We wouldn't have these issues if we didn't operate in such a manner.

IMPress Polly
05-18-2015, 06:05 AM
Well thank you Green Arrow and XI for your thorough replies! I appreciate the effort you guys have put in! Unfortunately, I only have five minutes to respond right now, so I'll have to be very broad and sweeping in summing up my reply to your thoughts for the time being, sorry. :tongue:

Basically what I sense from you guys is an almost mindless determination to be in the opposition regardless of the politics in play. I see a lot more posturing that serious politics in the remarks supplied very broadly. Let's take yours for example, Green Arrow. You explain that Hillary Clinton is too hawkish and militaristic a candidate for you and that renders her an unacceptable candidate...yet you've stated a willingness to endorse candidates like Jim Webb and even possibly "two Republicans", all of whom stake out MORE hawkish and militaristic foreign policy approaches than Hillary is running on! For example, Jim Webb has come out opposed to the nuclear/sanctions negotiations with in, in favor of imposing new sanctions right now precisely in order to scuttle said negotiations. Yet this does not bother you. This is a perfect example of what causes me to trust a lot less in the authenticity of YOUR positions than Hillary's!

As to claims you guys are making that Hillary is just posturing as a leftist for the sake of winning election 'like Obama did'...except Obama didn't! For those who don't remember the 2008 campaign, there were three major Democratic candidates in that field: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Between those three, Edwards was considered the populist, Hillary the party establishment candidate, and Obama the more...ugh..."bi-partisan compromise" candidate, i.e. the most right wing of them all. His voter base in the Democratic primaries was predominantly independents; not even partisan Democrats! He didn't betray you; you just never grasped what he stood for in the first place! Obama has indeed changed his politics somewhat over the years, it's true...but he's changed in the opposite direction of what you're suggesting: the Obama of today is a more ideological, left wing president who supports a range of positions (like free community college, criminal justice reform, taxes for Wall Street, etc.) that he never championed as a candidate, and whom never speaks anymore of "bi-partisanship" after having experienced years and years of unprecedented partisan belligerence from the other side. Obama has morphed from an annoying "purple Democrat" to more of a genuine populist himself over the years, and you can see the stages of this transformation particularly marked by election outcomes in 2012 and 2014. Hillary's transformation has been along the same lines. The Democratic Party as a whole has undergone this transformation. Comparing today's Democratic race to that of 2008, the range of debate we're seeing in the party today is essentially between the John Edwards line (now approximately represented by Hillary Clinton) and the Dennis Kucinich type of line (represented approximately by Bernie Sanders). That's the shift that's taken place over the years since the crash.

Yes there are business corporations who are willing to support a progressive political line. My previous employer, Ben & Jerry's, endorsed Edwards in 2008 knowing full well that he was calling for things like universal access to Medicare, kicking the lobbyists out of Washington, and for a six-month withdrawal timetable from Iraq. That's because there are indeed progressive-natured business corporations out there! They're definitely a minority, but they're there. The mere existence of SOME corporate support for a given candidate hence is not a dividing line issue for me. The point at which I take serious issue is that when corporate support becomes your principal source of campaign revenue. That will not happen for ANY Democrat in this race.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 06:10 AM
Well thank you Green Arrow and XI for your thorough replies! I appreciate the effort you guys have put in! Unfortunately, I only have five minutes to respond right now, so I'll have to be very broad and sweeping in summing up my reply to your thoughts for the time being, sorry. :tongue:

Basically what I sense from you guys is an almost mindless determination to be in the opposition regardless of the politics in play. I see a lot more posturing that serious politics in the remarks supplied very broadly. Let's take yours for example, Green Arrow. You explain that Hillary Clinton is too hawkish and militaristic a candidate for you and that renders her an unacceptable candidate...yet you've stated a willingness to endorse candidates like Jim Webb and even possibly "two Republicans", all of whom stake out MORE hawkish and militaristic foreign policy approaches than Hillary is running on! For example, Jim Webb has come out opposed to the nuclear/sanctions negotiations with in, in favor of imposing new sanctions right now precisely in order to scuttle said negotiations. Yet this does not bother you. This is a perfect example of what causes me to trust a lot less in the authenticity of YOUR positions than Hillary's!

As to claims you guys are making that Hillary is just posturing as a leftist for the sake of winning election 'like Obama did'...except Obama didn't! For those who don't remember the 2008 campaign, there were three major Democratic candidates in that field: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Between those three, Edwards was considered the populist, Hillary the party establishment candidate, and Obama the more...ugh..."bi-partisan compromise" candidate, i.e. the most right wing of them all. His voter base in the Democratic primaries was predominantly independents; not even partisan Democrats! He didn't betray you; you just never grasped what he stood for in the first place! Obama has indeed changed his politics somewhat over the years, it's true...but he's changed in the opposite direction of what you're suggesting: the Obama of today is a more ideological, left wing president who supports a range of positions (like free community college, criminal justice reform, taxes for Wall Street, etc.) that he never championed as a candidate, and whom never speaks anymore of "bi-partisanship" after having experienced years and years of unprecedented partisan belligerence from the other side. Obama has morphed from an annoying "purple Democrat" to more of a genuine populist himself over the years, and you can see the stages of this transformation particularly marked by election outcomes in 2012 and 2014. Hillary's transformation has been along the same lines. The Democratic Party as a whole has undergone this transformation. Comparing today's Democratic race to that of 2008, the range of debate we're seeing in the party today is essentially between the John Edwards line (now approximately represented by Hillary Clinton) and the Dennis Kucinich type of line (represented approximately by Bernie Sanders). That's the shift that's taken place over the years since the crash.

Yes there are business corporations who are willing to support a progressive political line. My previous employer, Ben & Jerry's, endorsed Edwards in 2008 knowing full well that he was calling for things like universal access to Medicare, kicking the lobbyists out of Washington, and for a six-month withdrawal timetable from Iraq. That's because there are indeed progressive-natured business corporations out there! They're definitely a minority, but they're there. The mere existence of SOME corporate support for a given candidate hence is not a dividing line issue for me. The point at which I take serious issue is that when corporate support becomes your principal source of campaign revenue. That will not happen for ANY Democrat in this race.

The main objection to Hillary is that she is incompetent.

If she had not married bill and rode his coattails to the White House she would be the democrat front runner today.

IMPress Polly
05-18-2015, 11:00 AM
I never get the point behind that criticism. I see it all the time, but always just point out that Republicans don't exactly have a better example in their corner. The only woman running for president on the Republican side of the aisle this time around is former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who so far has exactly ZERO experience working in the public sector and enjoys the support of just 1.3% of Republicans, placing her in a three-way tie for last place. That's how it goes, folks. In the last presidential election cycle, Michele Bachmann was the only woman running for the Republican nomination and became the first to quit once the primaries got underway after coming in last place in the Iowa Caucus. Then we could go back to the 2008 election cycle wherein Sarah Palin was nominated for the vice presidency by Republican candidate John McCain...except the only way that happened was that she didn't even run for the presidency; she was just arbitrarily picked for the VP post! At least Hillary Clinton has had a real career in politics, is actually running for president, and moreover enjoys front-runner status in her party. How anti-feminist! :wink:

Like most things is this rather unfair world we live in, politics too are basically a man's game. See the fact that 80% of the current Congress is male for example, as have been all our presidents thus far. So are most of the justices on the Supreme Court (which is probably they sign off on measures limiting access to birth control). So are a large majority of state governors. It's not easy for women to get elected or appointed to any meaningful political post even today unless it's maybe Secretary of State (a diplomacy-oriented post). Just the fact that Hillary has managed to get into the position she's in at all is, in that context, quite a feat by itself. The Democratic Party has a much better record when it comes to giving women a chance so far, as is well illustrated in the fact that 3 out of every 4 female members of Congress are Democrats.

PattyHill
05-18-2015, 11:10 AM
I never get the point behind that criticism. I see it all the time, but always just point out that Republicans don't exactly have a better example in their corner. The only woman running for president on the Republican side of the aisle this time around is former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who so far has exactly ZERO experience working in the public sector and enjoys the support of just 1.3% of Republicans, placing her in a three-way tie for last place. That's how it goes, folks. In the last presidential election cycle, Michele Bachmann was the only woman running for the Republican nomination and became the first to quit once the primaries got underway after coming in last place in the Iowa Caucus. Then we could go back to the 2008 election cycle wherein Sarah Palin was nominated for the vice presidency by Republican candidate John McCain...except the only way that happened was that she didn't even run for the presidency; she was just arbitrarily picked for the VP post! At least Hillary Clinton has had a real career in politics, is actually running for president, and moreover enjoys front-runner status in her party. How anti-feminist! :wink:

Like most things is this rather unfair world we live in, politics too are basically a man's game. See the fact that 80% of the current Congress is male for example, as have been all our presidents thus far. So are most of the justices on the Supreme Court (which is probably they sign off on measures limiting access to birth control). So are a large majority of state governors. It's not easy for women to get elected or appointed to any meaningful political post even today unless it's maybe Secretary of State (a diplomacy-oriented post). Just the fact that Hillary has gotten has managed to get into the position she's in at all is, in that context, quite a feat by itself. The Democratic Party has a much better record when it comes to giving women a chance so far, as is well illustrated in the fact that 3 out of every 4 female members of Congress are Democrats.


I agree. It's just another way to put her down. Would George W. Bush have been able to run for president if not for his dad? Connections can help. Yes, being first lady gave Ms. Clinton an advantage - but she ran for Senator on her own. And she became Secretary of State on her own. She has a lot of experience (whether one likes what she did or not) and she has done a lot of it on her own.

We don't know what would have happened if she hadn't married Bill Clinton. Maybe she would have already been president. Who knows?

IMPress Polly
05-18-2015, 11:32 AM
@PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335)


PattyHill wrote:
Thanks for this list. I don't see any of the current republican candidates supporting most of this list.

$#@!, you're a good poster. Do you have a blog I should be reading?

Thank you! :smiley:

Actually I do have a blog. It's linked in my signature. I haven't updated it in like a year though and some of the positions I've described taking therein are not ones I still take. For example, many of my blog posts from last year were on my distinctive brand of politics that I referred to as Marxist futurism. These days I just consider myself a futurist of a post-Marxist variety (where, by contrast, most futurists are of a post-humanist variety and retain some of that mentality). I've kinda completed the transition away from Marxism proper. For example, on my blog I defended dialectical materialism at some length, but would not continue to do so today, as I've since come around to an embrace of quantum mechanics, which I feel is incompatible with dialectics.

To speak more fully to where I stand today on the subject of moving toward socialism and ultimately communism (which I still support) in a scientific way, it should be recognized that we can essentially break society's component-parts into three categories:

1) the public sector (the government),
2) the commercial sector (private), and...
3) civil society (also private)

All politics boil down essentially to advocating for an expansion of one or two of those sectors at the expense of the other(s). The way I see it, where the Marxist is someone who favors that the public sector should have something approaching a monopoly on the economic and cultural life of society and the hardcore rightist feels that the domination of the commercial sector is to be desired, where I stand these days is in the place of favoring the protracted, radical expansion of the last of those three categories: the institutions of civil society. You know, the non-profit sector. The family, the bowling alley, the charity, the religious institutions (well okay maybe less those in my case :tongue:), the recreation center, the advocacy group, this sort of thing. The human part of society, in other words. In the practical, this renders me more fundamentally dedicated to the communities movement than in the labor movement where one would find the Marxist more comfortably situated. I take this distinctive position for a number of reasons, but just to sum it all up briefly, I simply feel that that's where things are headed. This kind of free sharing economy that's finally starting to mature and expand as a share of the world economy is able to do so because, unlike the state socialisms of the 20th century, it is more efficient, more creative, more productive than capitalism, and thus more attractive. I think what that concentrates is that truly scientific socialism, as contrasted with utopian socialism, focuses its basis of sharing at the point of distribution rather than at the point of foundational ownership. And I think the role of the public sector in all this is essentially to enact those policies that aid the expansion of this community sector.

Well anyway, enough lecture on socialism and communism! But that's kind of been the focus of my blog for the most part, so extensive elaboration on topics like that are the bulk of what you'll find if you click on that link in my signature.

The Xl
05-18-2015, 11:38 AM
Well thank you Green Arrow and XI for your thorough replies! I appreciate the effort you guys have put in! Unfortunately, I only have five minutes to respond right now, so I'll have to be very broad and sweeping in summing up my reply to your thoughts for the time being, sorry. :tongue:

Basically what I sense from you guys is an almost mindless determination to be in the opposition regardless of the politics in play. I see a lot more posturing that serious politics in the remarks supplied very broadly. Let's take yours for example, Green Arrow. You explain that Hillary Clinton is too hawkish and militaristic a candidate for you and that renders her an unacceptable candidate...yet you've stated a willingness to endorse candidates like Jim Webb and even possibly "two Republicans", all of whom stake out MORE hawkish and militaristic foreign policy approaches than Hillary is running on! For example, Jim Webb has come out opposed to the nuclear/sanctions negotiations with in, in favor of imposing new sanctions right now precisely in order to scuttle said negotiations. Yet this does not bother you. This is a perfect example of what causes me to trust a lot less in the authenticity of YOUR positions than Hillary's!

As to claims you guys are making that Hillary is just posturing as a leftist for the sake of winning election 'like Obama did'...except Obama didn't! For those who don't remember the 2008 campaign, there were three major Democratic candidates in that field: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Between those three, Edwards was considered the populist, Hillary the party establishment candidate, and Obama the more...ugh..."bi-partisan compromise" candidate, i.e. the most right wing of them all. His voter base in the Democratic primaries was predominantly independents; not even partisan Democrats! He didn't betray you; you just never grasped what he stood for in the first place! Obama has indeed changed his politics somewhat over the years, it's true...but he's changed in the opposite direction of what you're suggesting: the Obama of today is a more ideological, left wing president who supports a range of positions (like free community college, criminal justice reform, taxes for Wall Street, etc.) that he never championed as a candidate, and whom never speaks anymore of "bi-partisanship" after having experienced years and years of unprecedented partisan belligerence from the other side. Obama has morphed from an annoying "purple Democrat" to more of a genuine populist himself over the years, and you can see the stages of this transformation particularly marked by election outcomes in 2012 and 2014. Hillary's transformation has been along the same lines. The Democratic Party as a whole has undergone this transformation. Comparing today's Democratic race to that of 2008, the range of debate we're seeing in the party today is essentially between the John Edwards line (now approximately represented by Hillary Clinton) and the Dennis Kucinich type of line (represented approximately by Bernie Sanders). That's the shift that's taken place over the years since the crash.

Yes there are business corporations who are willing to support a progressive political line. My previous employer, Ben & Jerry's, endorsed Edwards in 2008 knowing full well that he was calling for things like universal access to Medicare, kicking the lobbyists out of Washington, and for a six-month withdrawal timetable from Iraq. That's because there are indeed progressive-natured business corporations out there! They're definitely a minority, but they're there. The mere existence of SOME corporate support for a given candidate hence is not a dividing line issue for me. The point at which I take serious issue is that when corporate support becomes your principal source of campaign revenue. That will not happen for ANY Democrat in this race.

Obama postured as a liberal and anti establishment as a candidate. Look at the issues he's flipped on.

- As a candidate, he stated that the President cannot go to war without Congress

- He said he would close Guantanamo Bay

- He was against the Patriot Act

- He was more anti drug war than any other candidate outside of Ron Paul

- Criticized Bush for use of executive orders

- Lobbied for universal health care

- Attacked bankers for the 08 crash(while having his campaign paid for by them)

I'm sure I'm missing quite a few. Point being, he completely changed into what you see today when he was elected, and I suspect that will happen with Hilary as well, especially when you consider her establishment record. All you have to do is look at their campaign donors, they're bought and paid for by big business, they'll govern for big business.

Polecat
05-18-2015, 11:39 AM
I only need one. She's a democrat.

Captain Obvious
05-18-2015, 11:41 AM
I only need one. She's a democrat.

Why do you hate women?

Polecat
05-18-2015, 11:42 AM
Why do you hate women?

They get to wear soft frilly stuff and I don't.

Captain Obvious
05-18-2015, 11:44 AM
They get to wear soft frilly stuff and I don't.

You can actually, but then you're choice of restaurants to patronize is limited though.

Polecat
05-18-2015, 11:47 AM
You can actually, but then you're choice of restaurants to patronize is limited though.

Golden Corral or Chinese buffet. I am not a complicated guy.

Hal Jordan
05-18-2015, 12:20 PM
Golden Corral or Chinese buffet. I am not a complicated guy.

You should be fine then.

Peter1469
05-18-2015, 01:28 PM
He was against gay marriage until the gay withheld campaign funds.


Obama postured as a liberal and anti establishment as a candidate. Look at the issues he's flipped on.

- As a candidate, he stated that the President cannot go to war without Congress

- He said he would close Guantanamo Bay

- He was against the Patriot Act

- He was more anti drug war than any other candidate outside of Ron Paul

- Criticized Bush for use of executive orders

- Lobbied for universal health care

- Attacked bankers for the 08 crash(while having his campaign paid for by them)

I'm sure I'm missing quite a few. Point being, he completely changed into what you see today when he was elected, and I suspect that will happen with Hilary as well, especially when you consider her establishment record. All you have to do is look at their campaign donors, they're bought and paid for by big business, they'll govern for big business.

GrassrootsConservative
05-18-2015, 01:40 PM
Why does Polly spend so much time using negative Republican stuff to find reasons to support the failing Democrat party?

Doesn't she realize there's many other parties to look at besides the two establishment parties?

PattyHill
05-18-2015, 04:23 PM
Why does Polly spend so much time using negative Republican stuff to find reasons to support the failing Democrat party?

Doesn't she realize there's many other parties to look at besides the two establishment parties?


No other party has a chance of winning the white house. So what's the point?

Until we get campaign finance reform (unlikely given the current Supreme Court) no third party can win.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 04:29 PM
No other party has a chance of winning the white house. So what's the point?



I agree.

either a democrat or a republican will win the next election for president.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 04:40 PM
No other party has a chance of winning the white house. So what's the point?

Until we get campaign finance reform (unlikely given the current Supreme Court) no third party can win.

That is not an issue I agonize over or even really particularly care about. The popular vote doesn't elect presidents anyway.

Peter1469
05-18-2015, 04:45 PM
No other party has a chance of winning the white house. So what's the point?

Until we get campaign finance reform (unlikely given the current Supreme Court) no third party can win.

Much of the problem for 3rd parties is getting on ballots in individual states. There are lots of pending lawsuits to correct that. But it is a state by state battle.

With the Internet, once we have 3rd parties getting onto ballots nationwide, we will have a good chance. People are waking up to the fraud that is the two party system.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 04:47 PM
Well thank you Green Arrow and XI for your thorough replies! I appreciate the effort you guys have put in! Unfortunately, I only have five minutes to respond right now, so I'll have to be very broad and sweeping in summing up my reply to your thoughts for the time being, sorry. :tongue:

Basically what I sense from you guys is an almost mindless determination to be in the opposition regardless of the politics in play. I see a lot more posturing that serious politics in the remarks supplied very broadly. Let's take yours for example, Green Arrow. You explain that Hillary Clinton is too hawkish and militaristic a candidate for you and that renders her an unacceptable candidate...yet you've stated a willingness to endorse candidates like Jim Webb and even possibly "two Republicans", all of whom stake out MORE hawkish and militaristic foreign policy approaches than Hillary is running on! For example, Jim Webb has come out opposed to the nuclear/sanctions negotiations with in, in favor of imposing new sanctions right now precisely in order to scuttle said negotiations. Yet this does not bother you. This is a perfect example of what causes me to trust a lot less in the authenticity of YOUR positions than Hillary's!

No offense, but that's a bit of a cop-out. For one thing, I said I was only considering voting for those two Republicans, not that I WOULD vote for them. I can be convinced to vote for anyone, even Hillary, if I'm presented with a strong enough argument and my issues are satisfactorily addressed.

Furthermore, as I explained at the start of my post, I take the issues in section. Every policy issue in the United States I divide into three main categories: Foreign, Domestic, and Civil/Social. Foreign includes any foreign policy issue. Domestic is basically economic and infrastructure issues. Civil/Social is obviously all of our social issues and civil liberties issues. I will examine every candidate's policy positions, divide them into the three categories. If I disagree with the vast majority of your positions in one category, that's 1/3 of the policy issues. I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that I disagree with on 1/3 of the issues.

So while Jim Webb is certainly more hawkish than I would like, I have not yet found him to be reaching that threshold of support that I have set. So, he's still in my consideration. My preference for a Democratic Party candidate is still Sen. Sanders.

I will wait for you to address my response to your response to my list of issues in-depth.

Ransom
05-18-2015, 05:04 PM
If anyone here thinks for one second that GA isn't voting for Hillary...... I've a bridge to Cuba to sell you. I accept cash only.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:05 PM
If anyone here thinks for one second that GA isn't voting for Hillary...... I've a bridge to Cuba to sell you. I accept cash only.

Everyone knows you are confident about your own ignorance, Ransom. You don't have to keep showing it off.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 05:06 PM
That is not an issue I agonize over or even really particularly care about. The popular vote doesn't elect presidents anyway.

You were ok with obumer over Romney?

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:07 PM
You were ok with obumer over Romney?

I didn't care either way. With Obummer (not Obumer, if you're going to use an immature name at least spell it right), we were getting handouts to big businesses, erosion of our civil liberties, and more dangerous foreign entanglements. With Romney, we were going to get handouts to big businesses, erosion of our civil liberties, and more dangerous foreign entanglements.

Chris
05-18-2015, 05:11 PM
If anyone here thinks for one second that GA isn't voting for Hillary...... I've a bridge to Cuba to sell you. I accept cash only.

If you're not going to contribute to the topic then go derail one of yours.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 05:13 PM
I didn't care either way. With Obummer (not Obumer, if you're going to use an immature name at least spell it right), we were getting handouts to big businesses, erosion of our civil liberties, and more dangerous foreign entanglements. With Romney, we were going to get handouts to big businesses, erosion of our civil liberties, and more dangerous foreign entanglements.

Is that a yes or no?

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:14 PM
Is that a yes or no?

I never wanted Barack Obama to be president. I don't want Mitt Romney to be president.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 05:27 PM
I never wanted Barack Obama to be president. I don't want Mitt Romney to be president.

That make you politically useless and completely unimportant.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:33 PM
That make you politically useless and completely unimportant.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/158/701/tumblr_lo1qh68nVL1qzgmxb.gif

That is pretty funny, though. You can't be distinguished from several million other mindless lever pullers. Meanwhile, I can go to just about every state in the country and have a large number of people know exactly who I am. Not to mention, I played a part in getting successful Tenth Amendment legislation passed in Virginia.

What can you say you accomplished, politically? Oh, nothing?

That's what I thought.

Mac-7
05-18-2015, 05:35 PM
That is pretty funny, though. You can't be distinguished from several million other mindless lever pullers. Meanwhile, I can go to just about every state in the country and have a large number of people know exactly who I am. Not to mention, I played a part in getting successful Tenth Amendment legislation passed in Virginia.

What can you say you accomplished, politically? Oh, nothing?

That's what I thought.

You are the one who is mindless and indecisive.

I know romney was a better man and would be a better president than obumer.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:39 PM
You are the one who is mindless and indecisive.

I know romney was a better man and would be a better president than obumer.

Keep your delusions. I would hate to disrupt your bubble.

Hal Jordan
05-18-2015, 05:44 PM
You were ok with obumer over Romney?

Obummer*

Peter1469
05-18-2015, 05:45 PM
You were ok with obumer over Romney?

Lesser of two evils. Meh.

Hal Jordan
05-18-2015, 05:45 PM
You are the one who is mindless and indecisive.

I know romney was a better man and would be a better president than obumer.

Obummer*

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:46 PM
Lesser of two evils. Meh.

The lesser of the two evils is still evil. G-d doesn't want me to support even a smidgen of evil, so I certainly can't support the lesser of two evils.

nic34
05-18-2015, 05:50 PM
My 2 words:

Supreme Court

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 05:51 PM
My 2 words:

Supreme Court

My three words:

I don't care.

Seriously, don't care. In fact, being completely honest, I don't care about the presidency either. If I had my way, nobody would give a shit about the POTUS or SCOTUS and would just worry about the Congress and state/local governance, 'cause that's where the real power is anyway.

nic34
05-18-2015, 05:55 PM
The power is in the hands of 9 robed monarchs....

As long as the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by our elected Representatives – then we don’t really have a democracy. We have monarchy – with nine kings and queens deciding what are and what aren't the laws.

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 06:17 PM
The power is in the hands of 9 robed monarchs....

No, it's really not. I think if you looked at the issue logically, you'd agree with me.

The Xl
05-18-2015, 06:26 PM
My 2 words:

Supreme Court

John Roberts passed obamacare. Your gripe doesn't hold the water you think it does

Green Arrow
05-18-2015, 06:30 PM
John Roberts passed obamacare. Your gripe doesn't hold the water you think it does

Not just that, but how often is the SCOTUS striking down legislation?

Honestly, it's a ridiculous fear that has no rational basis.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 04:57 AM
The power is in the hands of 9 robed monarchs....

As long as the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by our elected Representatives – then we don’t really have a democracy. We have monarchy – with nine kings and queens deciding what are and what aren't the laws.

Liberals like most of the Supreme Court decisions.

Are you so greedy that you want every single one to go your way?

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 04:58 AM
Not just that, but how often is the SCOTUS striking down legislation?

Honestly, it's a ridiculous fear that has no rational basis.

There would not be abortion or gay marriage in America without the unelected lawyers on the SC.

IMPress Polly
05-19-2015, 06:00 AM
The XI wrote:
Obama postured as a liberal and anti establishment as a candidate. Look at the issues he's flipped on.

Sure, let's go through these individually:


- As a candidate, he stated that the President cannot go to war without Congress

This critique is fair.


- He said he would close Guantanamo Bay

This critique is less fair because one of his first actions upon assuming office was to issue an executive order require the closure of the camp, in addition to banning the (direct) practice of torture (which had been commonplace during the Bush tenure). The reason the concentration camp wasn't closed is because Congress subsequently intervened with new legislation blocking the president from closing it. Now are there ways around this Congressional action the president could take if he considered closing the camp a priority? Yes. For example, he could simply refuse to sign the renewal of this legislation when it comes up again and I hope he does, but I don't get the sense that he's aiming to be that audacious and controversial with the process, unfortunately. But in principle Obama supports closing the camp and is doing things toward that end. Namely, at present he's trying to de facto close it by systematically moving all the prisoners to prisons in their respective countries upon clearance.


- He was against the Patriot Act

That's just not true. I think you might be confusing Obama's stance on the Patriot Act with his position on the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. That's something Obama was against kinda sorta, though his solution was legislation that came out in 2008 basically legalizing the wiretaps in question. My bigger point here is that Obama has never been a hawk on privacy rights.


- He was more anti drug war than any other candidate outside of Ron Paul

He's taken some pretty concrete actions toward that end, including reducing the sentencing of many, many prisoners convicted for minor drug offenses, to say nothing of simply allowing states like Colorado and Washington to legalize recreational marijuana despite the fact that as much is actually against federal law, technically speaking.


- Criticized Bush for use of executive orders

I never understand this particular critique. At the present rate, he won't even catch up with Bush in terms of the number of executive orders he issues during his presidency.


- Lobbied for universal health care

And he got something pretty close, you may have noticed even despite the opposition of the American Medical Association (the health insurance industry's trade association)! The Affordable Care Act is considered President Obama's signature accomplishment. While the coverage it both requires and helps provide is not truly universal in that Congress notably opted to leave out provisions covering undocumented immigrants, there's no question that it has already reduced the uninsured rate to barely 10%, which is the lowest in this country's history, and that it will continue to reduce the uninsured rate further throughout the rest of this decade. I ought to know that it's having an effect: my family has benefited from the Medicaid expansion directly this year!


- Attacked bankers for the 08 crash(while having his campaign paid for by them)

No he didn't. :tongue: Quite to the contrary, there was a reason why they backed him in 2008: because he actually beat his Republican opponent John McCain to the bank bailout proposal! It should come as no surprise then that Wall Street subsequently endorsed his presidential bid. However, after in 2010 Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation to rein in some of financial industry's fraudulent business practices and excesses that had led to the crash of 2008, Wall Street turned against him for the 2012 election cycle, wherein the Republicans made their position clear by nominating a Wall Street tycoon, Mitt Romney, as their candidate.


Peter wrote:
He was against gay marriage until the gay withheld campaign funds.

Well see now that's another great example of the shift leftward over time that I've talking about (although I hadn't heard about the financial aspect)! The Republican Party has shifted on this issue too, one might add, or at least much of it has. The difference is that the most progressive position we see Republican candidates embracing on the issue of same-sex marriage is that of, you know, taking the state's rights position these days rather than just calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, as they previously supported. (And MOST of their candidates, we might add, are still in the universal ban camp.) Obama, meanwhile, was already in the state's rights camp on the issue in 2008 and has since shifted to the universal legalization camp along with just about all other Democrats. The basic direction is consistent across both parties, but the degree of support remains greater in the Democratic Party.

Peter1469
05-19-2015, 06:08 AM
Sure, let's go through these individually:





- Criticized Bush for use of executive orders

I never understand this particular critique. At the present rate, he won't even catch up with Bush in terms of the number of executive orders he issues during his presidency.

It is not the number of EOs that is at issue. It is what the EOs do. Obama is writing law with some of his EOs. Bush didn't.







Well see now that's another great example of the shift leftward over time that I've talking about (although I hadn't heard about the financial aspect)! The Republican Party has shifted on this issue too, one might add, or at least much of it has. The difference is that the most progressive position we see Republican candidates embracing on the issue of same-sex marriage is that of, you know, taking the state's rights position these days rather than just calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, as they previously supported. (And MOST of their candidates, we might add, are still in the universal ban camp.) Obama, meanwhile, was already in the state's rights camp on the issue in 2008 and has since shifted to the universal legalization camp along with just about all other Democrats. The basic direction is consistent across both parties, but the degree of support remains greater in the Democratic Party.

Obama still thinks gay marriage is wrong. He just changed his policy to get donations from gays.

PattyHill
05-19-2015, 08:29 AM
Liberals like most of the Supreme Court decisions.

Are you so greedy that you want every single one to go your way?

Guess that means liberals like the constitution better than conservatives, huh?

Venus
05-19-2015, 08:36 AM
And in the case of community college, will be returned in multiple times because the kids should get better jobs with higher pay and thus pay more taxes. It's an investment, not a charity program.

Community college degrees have replaced high school diplomas, 2-year community colleges is an extension of high school.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 08:39 AM
It is not the number of EOs that is at issue. It is what the EOs do. Obama is writing law with some of his EOs. Bush didn't.

.

Well said, Peter.

nic34
05-19-2015, 09:00 AM
Community college degrees have replaced high school diplomas, 2-year community colleges is an extension of high school.

Nothing wrong with that.

Learning a trade is bad thing?

A 2 year head start on a 4 year degree is a bad thing?

PattyHill
05-19-2015, 09:12 AM
Nothing wrong with that.

Learning a trade is bad thing?

A 2 year head start on a 4 year degree is a bad thing?

I don't know if Venus was criticizing community colleges or not. Hard to tell.

My stepdaughter had a program where for the last two years of high school she actually took classes at community college - for free; part of the h.s. program. Didn't get her an AA but got her a bunch of college credits; she ended up getting a bookkeeping certificate from the CC by going for another couple semesters after high school (Pell grants covered it). Worked well for her. She got a job after completing it; she's now looking for a better job because her boss at her first job told her she was too smart not to get something better that paid more. (she's still at the first job while looking for the next one - nice boss!) I think she'll be repaying society for its investment in her just fine.

She had no interest in a four year program, sadly. Oh well, what can I do? It's her life!

Venus
05-19-2015, 09:18 AM
Nothing wrong with that.

Learning a trade is bad thing?

A 2 year head start on a 4 year degree is a bad thing?

Learning a trade is probably the best option in some situation. I have nothing against learning a trade and I've been an advocate of it in the past.

But is isn't, in most cases, a 2 year head start. It's catch up. The kids who need to start out in community college do so because the university won't take them because they don't have the level of knowledge required.
The kids who start out at their local community college do so because they need to take remedial math, english and so on before a 4 year university will consider them.

Like I said it's an extension of high school.

Polecat
05-19-2015, 09:19 AM
Some community colleges are a bad choice. It only takes a handful of turds to empty a pool. Our local one was just such a cookie in the 80's. It had to be overhauled eventually. It is much better now but still has a few dead end programs that need weeded out.

Venus
05-19-2015, 09:20 AM
I don't know if Venus was criticizing community colleges or not. Hard to tell.

My stepdaughter had a program where for the last two years of high school she actually took classes at community college - for free; part of the h.s. program. Didn't get her an AA but got her a bunch of college credits; she ended up getting a bookkeeping certificate from the CC by going for another couple semesters after high school (Pell grants covered it). Worked well for her. She got a job after completing it; she's now looking for a better job because her boss at her first job told her she was too smart not to get something better that paid more. (she's still at the first job while looking for the next one - nice boss!) I think she'll be repaying society for its investment in her just fine.

She had no interest in a four year program, sadly. Oh well, what can I do? It's her life!


I have nothing against community college. I am against free community college because we already have that, it's call high school.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 09:29 AM
Guess that means liberals like the constitution better than conservatives, huh?

I obey all the SC decisions although I don't respect them.

But I like the court even less than you do.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 09:31 AM
I have nothing against community college. I am against free community college because we already have that, it's call high school.

The victims of modern lib public education need at least two more years to pick up what they should have learned in high school.

nic34
05-19-2015, 09:50 AM
It is not the number of EOs that is at issue. It is what the EOs do. Obama is writing law with some of his EOs. Bush didn't.


Bush did.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush-subjects.html

Cigar
05-19-2015, 10:07 AM
For @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), my record of actual political positions and actions of Hillary Clinton that I oppose, all of which are issues that I oppose and criticize male politicians for.

Reason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans.

Reason 2: Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War.

Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy.

Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations.

Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism.

Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

Reason 8: Senator Clinton again voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal in 2006.

Reason 9: Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and a separate Congressional authorization for a unilateral invasion of Iraq.

Reason 10: In 2003, Senator Clinton helped outsourcing firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York.

Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration.

Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred.

Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification.

Reason 14: Secretary Clinton openly supported Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, despite the Burmese leader's abject racism toward the Rohingya people of Burma and tacit support of anti-human rights actions committed against the Rohingya minority by the Burmese government.

Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration.



Really due ... 15 Reasons just for One (1) Vote? You've invested more time in writing this Tread than it takes to Vote. Just say you're not Voting for her and invest the time in someone you will Vote for.

Now ... how many Reasons do you have for the person you're going to Vote for? :laugh:

nathanbforrest45
05-19-2015, 10:22 AM
I refuse to vote for her because she was never a Marine.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 10:27 AM
I refuse to vote for her because she was never a Marine.

But she did take sniper fire in Bosnia.

Chelsea picked off two of the pesky devils herself with return fire.

Cigar
05-19-2015, 10:32 AM
Want to see a Dear in the Headlight Look from a Conservative Voter? :shocked:

Ask them who they are Voting for from the list of 20 Candidates. :laugh:

They'll list a Million Reasons why they aren't Voting for a Democratic Candidate they were never going to Vote for in the first place, but not one reason why they'll Vote for one of the Conservative Candidates from their long list.

:pointlaugh:

IMPress Polly
05-19-2015, 10:41 AM
Peter wrote:
It is not the number of EOs that is at issue. It is what the EOs do. Obama is writing law with some of his EOs. Bush didn't.

Ah I see. Well I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I mean really there's nothing in the constitution that authorizes executive orders at all, so I mean there's no constitutional guidelines as to how they can and cannot be used. We're essentially going based on precedent and I always see plenty of arguments on both sides of the aisle as to whether, accordingly, this or that particular order has precedent or not, so I can't help but feel that the whole issue is innately very subjective. That's why I prefer to just base my analysis on numbers.


Obama still thinks gay marriage is wrong. He just changed his policy to get donations from gays.

This I definitely disagree with. I mean, for example, remember that college test or term paper or whatever it was again of his we got to see from way back in 1996 wherein he listed himself as a supporter of same-sex marriage even back then, when it was yet highly, HIGHLY unpopular, ESPECIALLY amongst African Americans? (That was, for the record, the year the Defense of Marriage Act got signed into law, for a little more perspective on the atmosphere of the times.) I mean, if anything, that tends to suggest to me that it was more likely his 2008 state's rights position on the issue that was fake, if any. You see what I mean?

IMPress Polly
05-19-2015, 10:59 AM
Green Arrow wrote:
No offense, but that's a bit of a cop-out. For one thing, I said I was only considering voting for those two Republicans, not that I WOULD vote for them. I can be convinced to vote for anyone, even Hillary, if I'm presented with a strong enough argument and my issues are satisfactorily addressed.

Furthermore, as I explained at the start of my post, I take the issues in section. Every policy issue in the United States I divide into three main categories: Foreign, Domestic, and Civil/Social. Foreign includes any foreign policy issue. Domestic is basically economic and infrastructure issues. Civil/Social is obviously all of our social issues and civil liberties issues. I will examine every candidate's policy positions, divide them into the three categories. If I disagree with the vast majority of your positions in one category, that's 1/3 of the policy issues. I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that I disagree with on 1/3 of the issues.

So while Jim Webb is certainly more hawkish than I would like, I have not yet found him to be reaching that threshold of support that I have set. So, he's still in my consideration. My preference for a Democratic Party candidate is still Sen. Sanders.

I will wait for you to address my response to your response to my list of issues in-depth.

I see. It seemed implied before that you were weighting the list for priority issues, considering foreign policy more important than others, and so I was, on the basis of that impression, trying to showcase an apparent inconsistency. Maybe my impression was wrong though. Oh well. Whatever. Anyway, I look forward to the rest of your reply!

IMPress Polly
05-19-2015, 11:10 AM
GrassrootsConservative wrote:
Why does Polly spend so much time using negative Republican stuff to find reasons to support the failing Democrat party?

Doesn't she realize there's many other parties to look at besides the two establishment parties?

Because she recognizes that, as things presently stand, third parties don't even occupy a kingmaker status at the national level and are thus totally irrelevant for all intents and purposes. Is that fair? No! But it's reality (at least at present) and I live and operate in the real world.

Lest there be any confusion though, while I may sound like a Democratic partisan much of the time, I've actually never been a Democrat before. The parties I've belonged to as yet have included the Leading Light Communist Organization and the Vermont Progressive Party (my current party). In my state, the Progressive Party is a politically relevant force able to capture statewide offices. It's just that nothing analogous to the situation in my state applies nationwide. Thus, when it comes to national level politics, I feel that the only serious position for a progressive is to find a place in the Democratic Party's general orbit.

texan
05-19-2015, 11:51 AM
eason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans. (Agreed, however there is a distinct difference. Romney is a very good person Hillary is what she is and that's not much.)

Reason 2: Senator Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War. (OK)

Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy. (Well we have learned that we do need to intervene if you haven't learned that then well uh......But I get your point and know where you stand. We need something in between what we are doing now and what Bush did)

Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. (I believe they should have and can't understand for the life of me why you would care, I think the reasons are bologna to not do this...)

Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations. (?)

Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism. (Agreed and this helped ISIS really get going. Guy gives up his nuclear program and then we replace him. Jesus what a major mistake)

Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. (I don't have a problem with the act and the way they left it to be changed every 4 years or so, that was a good idea. But they never fix it!)

Reason 8: Senator Clinton again voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal in 2006.

Reason 9: Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment to the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, which would have required the President to conduct vigorous diplomacy at the UN and a separate Congressional authorization for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. (Kind of agree here)

Reason 10: In 2003, Senator Clinton helped outsourcing firm Tata Consultancy Services to open an office in Buffalo, New York. (not familiar)

Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration. (I think you do not understand if you think this was an issue)

Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred. (We have certainly changed direction I am not sure what you are talking about. I am sure its some of the Libya type stuff.)

Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification. (you are naive, we couldn't risk allowing him to slip out if tipped which he surely would have been)

Reason 14: Secretary Clinton openly supported Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi, despite the Burmese leader's abject racism toward the Rohingya people of Burma and tacit support of anti-human rights actions committed against the Rohingya minority by the Burmese government. (OK)

Reason 15: Secretary Clinton supported the ouster of democratically-elected Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the radical Islamist elements of the Syrian rebels and the very much pro-diversity and pro-women record of the Assad administration. (Foreign policy not her strength for sure)

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 11:51 AM
Regarding EOs, Obama has an average of only three less per year than Bush does at this point in time. Clinton beats them both out, and I don't think any President can touch FDR on that, either on total or average. He had 307 per year, for a total of 3721. The only one without any was William Henry Harrison, but I'm not so sure he would really count... Disregarding him, the lowest average is shared by two Presidents, James Madison and James Monroe with 0.13 per year each (1 total each over 8 year presidencies). The lowest overall would be shared by those two and John Adams, who all only had one during their presidencies. In case you were wondering, George Washington had 8 total.

Bob
05-19-2015, 11:56 AM
Regarding EOs, Obama has an average of only three less per year than Bush does at this point in time. Clinton beats them both out, and I don't think any President can touch FDR on that, either on total or average. He had 307 per year, for a total of 3721. The only one without any was William Henry Harrison, but I'm not so sure he would really count... Disregarding him, the lowest average is shared by two Presidents, James Madison and James Monroe with 0.13 per year each (1 total each over 8 year presidencies). The lowest overall would be shared by those two and John Adams, who all only had one during their presidencies. In case you were wondering, George Washington had 8 total.

Obama has more forms of orders than just the EO's

There are proclamations and Directives.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

The Xl
05-19-2015, 12:32 PM
Sure, let's go through these individually:



This critique is fair.



This critique is less fair because one of his first actions upon assuming office was to issue an executive order require the closure of the camp, in addition to banning the (direct) practice of torture (which had been commonplace during the Bush tenure). The reason the concentration camp wasn't closed is because Congress subsequently intervened with new legislation blocking the president from closing it. Now are there ways around this Congressional action the president could take if he considered closing the camp a priority? Yes. For example, he could simply refuse to sign the renewal of this legislation when it comes up again and I hope he does, but I don't get the sense that he's aiming to be that audacious and controversial with the process, unfortunately. But in principle Obama supports closing the camp and is doing things toward that end. Namely, at present he's trying to de facto close it by systematically moving all the prisoners to prisons in their respective countries upon clearance.



That's just not true. I think you might be confusing Obama's stance on the Patriot Act with his position on the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program. That's something Obama was against kinda sorta, though his solution was legislation that came out in 2008 basically legalizing the wiretaps in question. My bigger point here is that Obama has never been a hawk on privacy rights.



He's taken some pretty concrete actions toward that end, including reducing the sentencing of many, many prisoners convicted for minor drug offenses, to say nothing of simply allowing states like Colorado and Washington to legalize recreational marijuana despite the fact that as much is actually against federal law, technically speaking.



I never understand this particular critique. At the present rate, he won't even catch up with Bush in terms of the number of executive orders he issues during his presidency.



And he got something pretty close, you may have noticed even despite the opposition of the American Medical Association (the health insurance industry's trade association)! The Affordable Care Act is considered President Obama's signature accomplishment. While the coverage it both requires and helps provide is not truly universal in that Congress notably opted to leave out provisions covering undocumented immigrants, there's no question that it has already reduced the uninsured rate to barely 10%, which is the lowest in this country's history, and that it will continue to reduce the uninsured rate further throughout the rest of this decade. I ought to know that it's having an effect: my family has benefited from the Medicaid expansion directly this year!



No he didn't. :tongue: Quite to the contrary, there was a reason why they backed him in 2008: because he actually beat his Republican opponent John McCain to the bank bailout proposal! It should come as no surprise then that Wall Street subsequently endorsed his presidential bid. However, after in 2010 Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation to rein in some of financial industry's fraudulent business practices and excesses that had led to the crash of 2008, Wall Street turned against him for the 2012 election cycle, wherein the Republicans made their position clear by nominating a Wall Street tycoon, Mitt Romney, as their candidate.



Well see now that's another great example of the shift leftward over time that I've talking about (although I hadn't heard about the financial aspect)! The Republican Party has shifted on this issue too, one might add, or at least much of it has. The difference is that the most progressive position we see Republican candidates embracing on the issue of same-sex marriage is that of, you know, taking the state's rights position these days rather than just calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, as they previously supported. (And MOST of their candidates, we might add, are still in the universal ban camp.) Obama, meanwhile, was already in the state's rights camp on the issue in 2008 and has since shifted to the universal legalization camp along with just about all other Democrats. The basic direction is consistent across both parties, but the degree of support remains greater in the Democratic Party.

This guy has passed plenty of overreaching executive orders and has orchestrated acts of war without Congresses approval, but all of a sudden they're the obstacle in closing Guantanamo? Yeah, I'm not buying that. For all the pandering, their are plenty of people still held up there that are cleared for release, and yet, nothing.

He specifically criticized the Patriot Act as a Senator, and as a candidate he insinuated either changing or getting rid of the Patriot Act, stating that he would provide law enforcement and intelligence what they needed without spying or illegal wiretapping. Yeah, sure.

The status quo on the war on drugs has continued, he has done nothing to curb it whatsoever. He has a grand platform make an issue of it, yet nothing. We still have the largest drug prison population in the world, and we're still spending an asinine amount of money on it.

As far as the bailouts go, Obama, McCain, whoever else really, were going to support the bailout. They're all empty suits. Obama was financed by the bankers because a smooth talking charismatic black guy who shamed the bankers and promised some sort of empty, vague reform would distract the people from the crisis and allow them to get away with it a lot easier than an deranged 80 year old white neocon who had the Bush Republican stigma on him would

nathanbforrest45
05-19-2015, 01:57 PM
Want to see a Dear in the Headlight Look from a Conservative Voter? :shocked:

Ask them who they are Voting for from the list of 20 Candidates. :laugh:

They'll list a Million Reasons why they aren't Voting for a Democratic Candidate they were never going to Vote for in the first place, but not one reason why they'll Vote for one of the Conservative Candidates from their long list.

:pointlaugh:


I would vote for Scott Walker because I believe he is the closest to a true conservative candidate. He would be my first choice by far. Secondly I would vote for anyone who opposes Hillary and at least has some legitimate reason to claim to be a conservative.

texan
05-19-2015, 02:11 PM
Walker Paul or Walker Rubio or Walker Kasich............I want some form of these guys together mix and match it how you want.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 03:48 PM
Obama has an average of only


**** obumer ****

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 03:51 PM
**** obumer ****

Obummer*

You know, as in bummer, not as in bumer (which is pronounced boo-mer), which is what Russians call a BMW. The only reason you would use the spelling you do is to compliment him by comparing him to a BMW, which I'm pretty sure is not what you intend.

Green Arrow
05-19-2015, 04:30 PM
Really due ... 15 Reasons just for One (1) Vote? You've invested more time in writing this Tread than it takes to Vote. Just say you're not Voting for her and invest the time in someone you will Vote for.

Now ... how many Reasons do you have for the person you're going to Vote for? :laugh:

I posted this because IMPress Polly wanted to know my reasons for not supporting Hillary.

I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for yet, but I will have a whole list of reasons when the time comes. I prefer to vote intelligently and ensure I'm informed about my choices.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 04:42 PM
Obummer*

You know, as in bummer, not as in bumer (which is pronounced boo-mer), which is what Russians call a BMW. The only reason you would use the spelling you do is to compliment him by comparing him to a BMW, which I'm pretty sure is not what you intend.


Wrong.

its obumer

Green Arrow
05-19-2015, 04:42 PM
eason 1: Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's Mitt Romney. She is part of the moneyed elite and is out of touch with working Americans. (Agreed, however there is a distinct difference. Romney is a very good person Hillary is what she is and that's not much.)

I don't know Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney personally, so I can't comment on that either way. I don't get the impression that either of them are evil people, but again, I can't say for sure one way or the other because I've never met them.


Reason 3: Hillary Clinton has an interventionist foreign policy. (Well we have learned that we do need to intervene if you haven't learned that then well uh......But I get your point and know where you stand. We need something in between what we are doing now and what Bush did)

Well, I disagree. To me, I don't see much difference between what we're doing now and what President Bush did. I would instead suggest that we need something between what we're doing now and isolationism. The technical term is non-interventionism. It doesn't mean you NEVER intervene (that's isolationism), it just means you're very selective about how you intervene. Mainly, that you don't intervene unless there's a legitimate threat to the nation or our interests.


Reason 4: Secretary Clinton pushed the Obama administration toward approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. (I believe they should have and can't understand for the life of me why you would care, I think the reasons are bologna to not do this...)

I have offered my reasons before, which are not, to my knowledge, the reasons you've heard. My reasons, in my opinion, are fairly sensible.


Reason 5: She served on the board of directors for Walmart and other major corporations. (?)

Conflict of interest.


Reason 6: Secretary Clinton advocated for the disastrous intervention in Libya that turned a relatively stable nation into a hotbed of instability and terrorism. (Agreed and this helped ISIS really get going. Guy gives up his nuclear program and then we replace him. Jesus what a major mistake)

Libya didn't help ISIL get going, it just gave them a power vacuum in Libya to take advantage of. Deposing Saddam in 2003 directly led to the creation of ISIL in 2004 and the lack of either the United States military controlling the country or another strongman like Saddam caused their dramatic rise to power.

Destabilizing Syria didn't help us much either.


Reason 7: Senator Clinton voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. (I don't have a problem with the act and the way they left it to be changed every 4 years or so, that was a good idea. But they never fix it!)

If it was good legislation in the first place, they wouldn't have to fix it. Furthermore, it's unconstitutional anyway.


Reason 11: Senator Clinton supported the big business bailouts of the Bush administration. (I think you do not understand if you think this was an issue)

I don't understand how fiscal conservatives can support the bailouts. This is one issue that progressives and fiscal conservatives should be united on. Bailouts are bad, period. The auto industry and companies like AIG crashed their own companies through reckless and irresponsible business policies. My family and I and the rest of the taxpayers of this nation are not responsible for saving their asses from their own mistakes.


Reason 12: When she took office as Secretary of State, she promised a change in direction for U.S. foreign policy. No such direction change ever occurred. (We have certainly changed direction I am not sure what you are talking about. I am sure its some of the Libya type stuff.)

Where have we changed direction? We're intervening in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, multiple African states, Ukraine. Drone strikes have increased by 500%. The U.S. military is inevitably going to have to return to engage war in Iraq. We are going in the exact same direction.


Reason 13: Despite promising a more diplomatic U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Clinton was the one who convinced the Obama administration to go ahead with the raid on Osama bin-Laden's hiding place without Pakistani approval or even notification. (you are naive, we couldn't risk allowing him to slip out if tipped which he surely would have been)

You call it naive, I call it moral. If I have to be the former to be the latter, so be it.

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 04:43 PM
Wrong.

its obumer

If you want to compliment him.

Mac-7
05-19-2015, 04:46 PM
If you want to compliment him.

Its obumer anytime.

Green Arrow
05-19-2015, 04:46 PM
Its obumer anytime.

Not even your conservative talking heads spell it "Obumer."

Peter1469
05-19-2015, 04:47 PM
Bush did.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush-subjects.html

Which ones made laws not based off an act of Congress?

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 04:49 PM
Not even your conservative talking heads spell it "Obumer."

Or pronounce it O-boo-mer, which is the only way that could properly be pronounced.

PattyHill
05-19-2015, 04:49 PM
I have nothing against community college. I am against free community college because we already have that, it's call high school.

There are many things taught at community college that aren't taught in high school. Various vocational tracks that high schools don't cover.

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 04:50 PM
There are many things taught at community college that aren't taught in high school. Various vocational tracks that high schools don't cover.

High school didn't teach me shit. I had to teach myself outside of school. The public school system is less than worthless the way it currently is.

Peter1469
05-19-2015, 04:51 PM
Ah I see. Well I suppose that's a matter of perspective. I mean really there's nothing in the constitution that authorizes executive orders at all, so I mean there's no constitutional guidelines as to how they can and cannot be used. We're essentially going based on precedent and I always see plenty of arguments on both sides of the aisle as to whether, accordingly, this or that particular order has precedent or not, so I can't help but feel that the whole issue is innately very subjective. That's why I prefer to just base my analysis on numbers.




The constitution is silent on EOs, but the Constitution is clear on separation of powers. Congress legislates and the Executive Branch executes those laws. EOs ought to be based off of laws passed by Congress to provide clarity or focus. The EO on immigration, for example, was based off legislation that never passed Congress.

texan
05-19-2015, 05:00 PM
High school didn't teach me shit. I had to teach myself outside of school. The public school system is less than worthless the way it currently is.


It's highly debatable that you actually learned outside of HS either......

texan
05-19-2015, 05:01 PM
The constitution is silent on EOs, but the Constitution is clear on separation of powers. Congress legislates and the Executive Branch executes those laws. EOs ought to be based off of laws passed by Congress to provide clarity or focus. The EO on immigration, for example, was based off legislation that never passed Congress.


Well there is one thing for sure, if you say its illegal 30 times as a constitutional lawyer and then do it anyway then its pretty clear.

Hal Jordan
05-19-2015, 05:02 PM
It's highly debatable that you actually learned outside of HS either......

Well, if you think that, then that makes HS even more worthless, because I was acing every test, even though I didn't pay attention in class.

Green Arrow
05-19-2015, 05:05 PM
It's highly debatable that you actually learned outside of HS either......

Was there a reason for that blatant personal attack, texan?

texan
05-19-2015, 05:07 PM
That's called humor, I have nothing against brother Hal. Thanks for asking.