Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders
Last edited Fri Sep 4, 2015, 12:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Video by Sanders campaign showing Hillary Clinton changing positions while Sanders consistently stands up for liberal values. Shows Clinton refusing to take a position on the Keystone XL pipeline and Sanders opposing it.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)for an objective, perceptive mind.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I don't know how anyone comparing those two and looking at their policy initiatives could honestly not favor Sanders.
merrily
(45,251 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I still don't think he's the right choice for president, but damn he's an incredible orator, and a very moving figure with his positions.
The realization of the truth can be very hard. But if you are a grown-up, you will survive it and vote for Bernie.
DrBulldog
(841 posts). . . because this video shows us exactly what all of us would immediately see at such a debate.
question everything
(47,544 posts)perhaps not so much on DU, but in the country as a whole.
Nothing against Sanders, but in general, I'd trust someone who studies issues and change his or her position, than just stick by one set of opinions and never wavers regardless of changes. Like the ones who insisted on beta max in the 80s.
This is why it bothers me all the PC runs amok like eliminating Jefferson from his important position in our history. A different topic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Either then or now?
George Wallace evolved and as much as I appreciate that I don't want him as president.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)When that changes, so does her position.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)revolve implies spinning.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Which of these positions do you think Bernie should have changed? And are you seriously saying Bernie just has "opinions" and does not study issues? Which position is his "beta max"?
IMO Hillary changes positions according to polls. And if a poll indicated that most Americans liked betamax, she would have insisted on betamax. Until most Americans liked VHS, and then she would have come out strongly for VHS. There is no "there", there, IMO. No core. Just what plays well.
votesparks
(1,288 posts)Is the proverbial straw on the Camel's back for me. To me it's the same as taking money from slave traders.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Hillary Clinton's campaign took donations from lobbyists whose clients include private prisons, among other companies.
In 2008, Obama refused all donations from federally-registered lobbyists.
But Sanders isn't refusing lobbyist-donations. If those same lobbyists filled out the online form at Sanders website and donated to him, the donations would go through the same as the donations to Clinton.
I've never heard of a campaign taking lobbyist donations, but not if the lobbyist has certain clients.
Both the Clinton website and the Sanders website ask the donor to certify:
2.I am making this contribution on a personal card with my own personal funds, not those of another person or entity.
3.I am not a federal contractor.
4.I am at least 18 years old.
They don't ask donors to certify, "I am not a federally-registered lobbyist."
votesparks
(1,288 posts)Even so, she should give that money back knowing the dirty hands it comes from. I would expect Sanders to do the same if dirty money rolled in unbeknownst to his campaign.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...is where to draw the line.
Lots of industries are controversial. Fast food companies for low wages, oil companies for global warming, fur companies for animal cruelty, etc.
If it were up to me:
A) Candidate websites would have a line for donors to declare that they aren't lobbyists.
B) When tickets to Events-with-Candidates are sold, they'd ask the buyers to promise not to give any of the tickets to lobbyists.
No presidential candidate has ever done both of those.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that has the effect of reducing the possibility that a lobbyist can realistically expect to buy influence or corrpt Bernie.
$2700 just would never buy any politician's vote.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...then it's going to be a small event in which the rich get to talk to the candidate more than the average person.
I'm not aware of Sanders doing such events.
I'm just saying that even the hard-money primary donation limit doesn't necessarily lead to equal access.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)much less pay a salary.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...feels indebted after getting $2,700.
I'm saying that when dinner tickets are sold for that much, then the candidate hears the opinions of richer people, including lobbyists.
polichick
(37,152 posts)sorechasm
(631 posts)Calculated Return on Investment vs. Casting Fate to the Wind
Cautious Steps vs. Consummate Mensche
The Survivor vs. The Thriver
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It's just Sanders' ideas seem better.
I wonder what would come out of them working together. I suppose they will once the primaries are over.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,459 posts)Thanks for the thread, Eric J in MN.
zebonaut
(3,688 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)A no-brainer for thinking people .
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom