Re: Presidential Election 2016
Posted: February 10th, 2016, 11:51 am
Remember when TNC was "Team Hillary" for criticizing Bernie's reparations answer? http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10959622/t ... nders-vote
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Well, let's be quite honest about this, she's right! Iran's regime operates with only a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy, is deeply repressive, supports terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, and actively undermines its neighbors. I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at those facts and still disagree with military action (as do I), but I don't think there's any question that they should concern us.Clinton is more hawkish than the average democrat and she made sure to announce on the day that the Iran Nuclear deal went into place “I am deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it, It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans and many others, including its own people, on its hands.” Remember this is someone who voted to invade Iraq.
Why shouldn't they? Remember, when people say "Goldman Sachs is a big contributor," they don't mean that Goldman Sachs (the corporation) donated a ton of money, they mean that people who work for Goldman Sachs have. And that's no surprise; it's an immensely wealthy company that pays a lot of money to its employees, many of whom are probably personally center-left. That doesn't mean that Goldman Sachs is conspiring with her, any more than the University of California (#9 of her largest donors).Four out of the five largest contributors to Clinton's campaign are Wall Street banks. You may think that only a conspiratorial person would believe that contributions equal influence. I for one do not think they give Clinton millions of dollars on a whim.
Well, in fairness to Clinton, she donated all money from private prisons to charity and has called for their abolition.Her Support of the 1996 crime bill and financial support from companies profiting from the proliferation of prisons should make anyone questions her conviction. I consider myself a prison abolitionist, probably unfair to Clinton, since I am the one out of step from the mainstream.
Of course. And to be certain, I'm not in any way saying that Hillary Clinton would be the next FDR, or that I agree with her on every issue, or that she's even the closest candidate to me in the race. But I don't see Sanders surviving attack ads like these if he made it to the general:She would be a okay president, especially if she follows what she has outlined in her platform. But her past makes me question her political instincts.
I'm glad I'm contributing to the storyline that a large too-big-to-fail bank is contributing money to Bernie Sanders, who vows to break it into pieces.Remember, when people say "Goldman Sachs is a big contributor," they don't mean that Goldman Sachs (the corporation) donated a ton of money, they mean that people who work for Goldman Sachs have. And that's no surprise; it's an immensely wealthy company that pays a lot of money to its employees, many of whom are probably personally center-left.
Iran's government is certainly not an example of an ideal government. I do not subscribe to the idea that Iran is worse actor in Middle East than anyone else, the US included. Sure the Guardian Council is a roadblock to true democratic expression, but Rouhani and the moderates are popular and will like have enough seats in the assembly to choose the next supreme leader. Iran distrusts the US because of distrustful things the US has done to Iran. I mean a movie about how the US tricked Iran won an Oscar for best picture.Well, let's be quite honest about this, she's right! Iran's regime operates with only a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy, is deeply repressive, supports terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East, and actively undermines its neighbors. I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at those facts and still disagree with military action (as do I), but I don't think there's any question that they should concern us.
Even though I will vote for Hillary as a firewall against the GOP, I agree with this 100%. I've stated over and over again that I did not want her to run. I hoped and prayed (not really, lifelong atheist lol) through the past few years that she would not. I don't blame Bernie for why I hate this Democratic primary so much - that blame falls squarely on Hillary. Had she not run, the Democratic party would likely be in a much stronger position than it is today, because a bunch of good candidates would've come forward (Elizabeth Warren, et al). I too absolutely detest the idea of presidential family dynasties. It's disgusting...get out of the way and let someone else run. Instead we find ourselves in a position with two flawed Democratic candidates, neither of whom can unite the party or appeal to independentsMy main problem is that we're getting too close to having presidential dynasties. We're the third-most populous country on the planet, with 320 million people -- there's little excuse for having a son follow a father into the job (and we still have another brother running this year) or for spouses to follow each other in the position. Hillary could do pretty much anything she wants -- Go back to the Senate! Run for Governor! Head a business! -- but I find it really hard to tolerate the presidential bid.
Besides the international comparisons, one idea that I've seen repeatedly on this topic (I don't know if there's a name for it, and if so it could be defined somewhat differently than I'm stating here) is that one way to stymie change is to allow a small amount of progress to either reduce the desire for change, and/or create the illusion that significant change has taken place. Sacrificing a portion to preserve the whole.How on earth is Clinton indistinct from a conservative?There is an argument to be had on how distinct Hillary is/isn't from conservatism
Wow what revisionist history. The presidency isn't a dictatorship. ACA barely got the 60 votes it needed to overcome the filibuster as it was. Democrats had 59, plus Joe Liberman - an independant who refused to vote for anything if it included a public option.We could have had a Single-Payer system if it was pushed through in reconciliation like Obamacare was, and it would have been durable, but instead Obama kept much of our current system in place.
No we couldn't have. The votes were not there.We didn't even have the votes for a public option.We could have had a Single-Payer system if it was pushed through in reconciliation like Obamacare was
The whole bill could not have been pushed through using reconciliation, because it touched more than spending. This is known as the "Byrd rule." Try again.If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
You don't even need that, because the blue dogs Dems - Ben Nelson is the particular name that comes to mind but there were others - were not going to vote for it.The whole bill could not have been pushed through using reconciliation, because it touched more than spending. This is known as the "Byrd rule." Try again.If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
Ah. You are thinking of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which was passed later that year to modify the ACA after it had already been passed. It only contained budgetary changes like changes to subsidy levels and eliminating the "Cornhusker Kickback", and so wasn't subject to the filibuster which Democrats could no longer break due to the election of Scott Brown. Remember Dems only had like 6 months with 60 votes (including the independent votes) because of the recount for Sen. Frankin's seat and the death of Kennedy.If I recall correctly, Ted Kennedy died before the process was through, and they had to push it through in reconciliation without the 60 votes anyways. I don't have links on hand since I'm on mobile, but looking into this a couple weeks ago Single-payer would have had (according to one of the senators who was part of the process, idr who) a simple majority of 51 votes, meaning they could have passed it along those lines if they really wanted to push it through.
This is a nice fantasy (sort of), but it was not possible. He does not have magic powers to make the Nelsons and Lieberman's of the world vote for things.he should/would have blown up the Senate and shoved comprehensive reforms down Lieberman's throat