Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A graphic that says all that needs to be said, (Original Post) hifiguy Sep 2015 OP
Figues Don't Lie november3rd Sep 2015 #1
75% of statistics are made up Blue_Adept Sep 2015 #22
Did you make that one up? Fuddnik Sep 2015 #26
Then it would be easy for you.... daleanime Sep 2015 #56
Uh... Blue_Adept Sep 2015 #73
You do realize that doesn't disprove a single line.... daleanime Sep 2015 #75
Obviously I needed to put huge sarcasm tags on every post Blue_Adept Sep 2015 #79
I love that joke! AlbertCat Sep 2015 #84
Odds are 3 in 4 that your statistic is made up. L. Coyote Sep 2015 #71
lies, lies and statistics. Blue_Adept Sep 2015 #72
WRONG. SusanaMontana41 Sep 2015 #91
Pretty much sums up my views Kelvin Mace Sep 2015 #2
Sad that we have to keep explaining this, but explain we must. HappyPlace Sep 2015 #3
Also sad that this is papered over with the buzzwords "hate", "smearing", and "bashing". djean111 Sep 2015 #4
And that doesn't even mention the fact that HRH hifiguy Sep 2015 #7
This makes it damn clear what Bernie is about and for whom! He reminds of what the RKP5637 Sep 2015 #5
+1 Go Vols Sep 2015 #82
Shouldn't Keystone say "must elect her president to find out her opinion if it"? arcane1 Sep 2015 #6
In Hillary's defense left-of-center2012 Sep 2015 #8
. . . hifiguy Sep 2015 #9
... Bubzer Sep 2015 #62
K & R Dont call me Shirley Sep 2015 #10
HRC - Is Also DLCer & Obligated To Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - A Favorite Friend Of The 1% cantbeserious Sep 2015 #11
Don't forget the NeoconArtists. n/t Wilms Sep 2015 #18
And where are Hillary's supporters? Don't they have answers for all of this? n/t CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2015 #12
Facts are stubborn things, hifiguy Sep 2015 #13
They certainly are, my dear hifiguy! CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2015 #14
Math is hard. AtheistCrusader Sep 2015 #15
That's for damn sure. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2015 #17
I'm sure some will be by Blue_Adept Sep 2015 #23
it doesn't matter if... antigop Sep 2015 #24
Two, actually.... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2015 #37
And that changes..... daleanime Sep 2015 #57
For someone who isn't a democrat, hughee99 Sep 2015 #58
As Hillary famously said, "At this point, what difference does it make?" Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2015 #66
"And where are Hillary's supporters? Don't they have answers for all of this?" n/t SusanaMontana41 Sep 2015 #87
Lather, rinse, repeat. longship Sep 2015 #16
The point of distributing this graphic is ... DrBulldog Sep 2015 #28
Especially if one has cherry picked the data. longship Sep 2015 #63
Yes. aquart Sep 2015 #78
Maligning the alternatives? Do tell! RufusTFirefly Sep 2015 #30
The chart points out the differences, the contrasts between JDPriestly Sep 2015 #31
I know what the chart shows. longship Sep 2015 #34
You're exactly right RobertEarl Sep 2015 #45
Why not see just the good? longship Sep 2015 #46
You haven't decided? Then this is for you. RobertEarl Sep 2015 #47
I may have decided. longship Sep 2015 #48
Well RobertEarl Sep 2015 #49
I certainly did not even imply that. longship Sep 2015 #50
Speaking out of your ass? RobertEarl Sep 2015 #51
Gees! I think you may need to reconsider. longship Sep 2015 #53
Thanks katmille Sep 2015 #86
There are plenty of things that all the Dem candidates agree on eridani Sep 2015 #54
+1 uponit7771 Sep 2015 #41
How does that chart "malign" anybody? How is it "going negative"? tularetom Sep 2015 #59
It certain appears to state facts. longship Sep 2015 #61
Bernie doesn't agree with a completely open border. Skwmom Sep 2015 #19
He favors immigration reform. JDPriestly Sep 2015 #32
This is a dupe but with a much larger meme. Maybe that's what is needed. L0oniX Sep 2015 #20
This graphic pretty much sums up the difference MissDeeds Sep 2015 #21
HRC has "small donor" contributions similar to Bernie's, though. malthaussen Sep 2015 #25
I've passed it along to all my friends. DrBulldog Sep 2015 #27
The most important difference to me Lazy Daisy Sep 2015 #29
Some try saying Krytan11c Sep 2015 #36
Most Important Stat: lobodons Sep 2015 #33
Uh....no. Take a look at polling in swing states jeff47 Sep 2015 #35
Have you seen what it looks like at the GOP? Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2015 #38
! Off topic, I know but, I gotta ask what IS the story behind that pic ? Hiraeth Sep 2015 #60
I found it when I googled "new Republican logo". Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2015 #64
Republican most likely to defeat Dem nominee in 2016, whoever that may be. L. Coyote Sep 2015 #74
Based on what? Dawgs Sep 2015 #77
K & R. The choice couldn't be clearer, Sanders 2016! Bernie's the first real Democrat in decades. appalachiablue Sep 2015 #39
I assume you all will ignore me this time too but here goes dsc Sep 2015 #40
+1 uponit7771 Sep 2015 #42
Name Bernie Super-Pacs cantbeserious Sep 2015 #76
One of the those candidates possesses the foresight and the good judgement on major issues that sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #43
We probably don't have to post this every day like it's new Doctor_J Sep 2015 #44
K&R Iwillnevergiveup Sep 2015 #52
Okay. NYC Liberal Sep 2015 #55
That response is brilliant: it remains polite, focuses on the issues Betty Karlson Sep 2015 #65
I'm bookmarking this thread just for your post! SunSeeker Sep 2015 #67
Only 330Ks netw worth? Helen Borg Sep 2015 #68
Great Chart. Paka Sep 2015 #69
I think you just made someone's head explode. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #70
Ah, I can finally see the graphic. aquart Sep 2015 #80
Pretty well sums up why I've never been terribly fond of HRC and intend to vote Bernie mnhtnbb Sep 2015 #81
Irony...it almost matches about 85% of Obama's positions. nt kelliekat44 Sep 2015 #83
This doesn't matter to Hillary supporter 4dsc Sep 2015 #85
I'm stealing your graphic. Hope you don't mind. But even if you do … SusanaMontana41 Sep 2015 #88
Not mine. hifiguy Sep 2015 #89
"The "series of tubes." My bad. SusanaMontana41 Sep 2015 #90

Blue_Adept

(6,402 posts)
79. Obviously I needed to put huge sarcasm tags on every post
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 10:15 AM
Sep 2015

I guess I should have said 115% of statistics are lies.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
84. I love that joke!
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 11:46 AM
Sep 2015

Some people are just humor impaired.

Perhaps without the voice inflection it doesn't come across to readily.

Blue_Adept

(6,402 posts)
72. lies, lies and statistics.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 09:12 AM
Sep 2015

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SusanaMontana41

(3,233 posts)
91. WRONG.
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 03:49 AM
Sep 2015

Bernie is the democrat in the race.

Gotta be the small d. every time. Big difference.

Because democrat still means something.

 

HappyPlace

(568 posts)
3. Sad that we have to keep explaining this, but explain we must.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:16 PM
Sep 2015

There's really no contest here.

Pick a guaranteed pile of more of the same, or vote for the one who really represents change and has all the credentials you could ask for that he'll follow through.

What's more, much of the Dem establishment want it, too.

Feeling sorry for the likes of Dean and Strickland, who seem obliged to follow the "more of the same" candidate.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
4. Also sad that this is papered over with the buzzwords "hate", "smearing", and "bashing".
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:18 PM
Sep 2015

Like we were supposed to have an issue-free primary.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
7. And that doesn't even mention the fact that HRH
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:28 PM
Sep 2015

is viewed as a "sister-in-law" by none other than His Chimperial Fraudulency. An honorary member of the Bush Crime Family.

RKP5637

(67,112 posts)
5. This makes it damn clear what Bernie is about and for whom! He reminds of what the
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 05:21 PM
Sep 2015

democratic party used to be.

Blue_Adept

(6,402 posts)
23. I'm sure some will be by
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:31 PM
Sep 2015

A lot simply don't bother anymore. The muckraking in general has me avoiding this subset of the forum completely unless I accidentally click a link off the homepage that takes me here.

The rancor between both sides here has largely turned me off of DU in a way that past primary seasons have not before.

antigop

(12,778 posts)
24. it doesn't matter if...
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:35 PM
Sep 2015

1) They want a female prez sooo badly.

2) They benefit from the status quo.

3) They have convinced themselves she can win and Bernie can't.

4) Some combination of the above.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
58. For someone who isn't a democrat,
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:33 AM
Sep 2015

He sure seems to support a lot of things Dems like. A lot more things than the "real democrat" does.

If he wins the Dem primary, will he be a Democrat then?

SusanaMontana41

(3,233 posts)
87. "And where are Hillary's supporters? Don't they have answers for all of this?" n/t
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 04:45 PM
Sep 2015

1. Defending themselves, and
2. Her surrogates are trying to come up with one.

longship

(40,416 posts)
16. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:12 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:51 PM - Edit history (2)

One sees this graphic on DU regularly. As if this is going to change a person's mind. It has been posted at least twice today alone.

My question is why, if not to divide the party. And why would anybody want to do that?

I know... One has to understand the differences between the candidates. That is fine.

But here's the deal. If one cannot promote your choice without maligning the alternatives, one has no argument.

And BTW, Bernie isn't doing it. So why do DUers? I guess they just don't get it. Going negative hurts everybody.

At least Bernie understands that. Thank goodness.

 

DrBulldog

(841 posts)
28. The point of distributing this graphic is ...
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:09 PM
Sep 2015

... not to change the minds of those who refuse to change, but of those who can. The more distribution, the better. (Actually, that's the same distribution policy used for the lies of Fox News.)

longship

(40,416 posts)
63. Especially if one has cherry picked the data.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:18 AM
Sep 2015

Which I suspect why this chart appears over and over and over again here. I suspect an ideological objection to Secy Clinton.

Just like I suspect an ideological objection when I see a "Bernie isn't a Democrat" posts or some such.

These are Rove tactics.

aquart

(69,014 posts)
78. Yes.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 10:07 AM
Sep 2015

Sadly it's these very supporters who will call for Bernie's head if he does become president and then does what a president MUST do: compromise.

I used to live at DU but since I "refuse to change" my allegiance, the smarmy nastiness of this shrunken tent just gets me down.

Bernie's a great guy. He doesn't deserve the small-minded, hysterical, witch hunting behavior of the people who follow him.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
30. Maligning the alternatives? Do tell!
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:25 PM
Sep 2015

As far as I can see, this graphic dispassionately maps out some key differences between two of the Democratic presidential candidates.

It's not maligning. It's informing. Unless, of course you think information is inherently malignant.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
31. The chart points out the differences, the contrasts between
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:37 PM
Sep 2015

the candidates. It does not malign anyone. It simply tells the truth.

I have not seen a chart that makes Hillary's views and actions look better than Bernie's.

There isn't one. There can't be one.

Because Bernie is the better person and the better candidate because he has the best views and has conducted himself in the past according to the highest standard.

Hillary supporters don't defend her because it is not possible to defend her.

longship

(40,416 posts)
34. I know what the chart shows.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:56 PM
Sep 2015

I have seen it dozens of times here, which is precisely my point.

And if one does not understand the concept of cherry-picking data to malign a candidate, I guess I will not be able to disabuse them of their opinion.

My point is that Bernie has specifically eschewed such tactics, as has Hillary Clinton.

But we see it all over the place here.

The extent that one does not see that chart as a hit piece is the extent that one is deep into negative politics, which neither Bernie nor Hillary have embraced. (BTW, I do not recommend the surrogate argument under this particular OP.)

Play nice. Like Bernie, and like Hillary.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
45. You're exactly right
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:27 PM
Sep 2015

In that the truth does make Hillary look bad when compared to Bernie.

You nailed it, longship.

longship

(40,416 posts)
46. Why not see just the good?
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:36 PM
Sep 2015

Why highlight cherry-picked bad?

That serves nobody!

This chart is a hit piece, like Nixon's crowd would do. It is evil and it has appeared over and over and over again here on DU.

I have no expressed preference for the 2016 presidential election. It is just too damned early. But Bernie himself has distanced himself from such utter rubbish as this OP.

My question is: Why anybody would support such an overt hit piece when the person who would gain from it would distance himself from it?

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
47. You haven't decided? Then this is for you.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:43 PM
Sep 2015

“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

– Patrick Henry

longship

(40,416 posts)
48. I may have decided.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:54 PM
Sep 2015

But maybe I would prefer not to plunge myself into a vat of necrotizing fasciitis that has become the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination process, for at least the last two plus fucking years!

So although I may or may not have a preference, I certainly have no intention of revealing it in this highly toxic forum.

That way I can call folks out on what matters most at this point, their universally bad behavior.

My regards.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
49. Well
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:58 PM
Sep 2015

You have clearly stated that the Truth makes it look like Hillary is maligned, so that's good enough.

longship

(40,416 posts)
50. I certainly did not even imply that.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:18 PM
Sep 2015

So please do not interpret any post I make as a preference in any future Democratic presidential selection process (called variously as a primary, caucus, convention, etc.)

As I posted, as far as this forum is concerned, I have no preference. I may like Ralph Nader! (Although not likely.)

DU is a toxic waste dump with respect to the Democratic nomination process and it has been so since before Obama was elected to his second term.

So, I hope you don't mind if I keep my opinion to myself. Certainly I am not going to let others speak for me on this issue. That means you too.

In other words, you are speaking out of your ass with regards to my preferences. And I have no intentions to tip my hand on these matters.

Nevertheless, thank you for playing, Robert.

As always,
My regards.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
51. Speaking out of your ass?
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:29 PM
Sep 2015

Heh, you clearly stated that the graph maligned Hillary.

And I agree with you. The Truth in that graph makes Hillary look awful!!

You seem to have a problem with political discussions and the Truth. And I don't. Thing is that Bernie has to become the next president. HAS TO.

That will be all, you can now return to your regular programming.

longship

(40,416 posts)
53. Gees! I think you may need to reconsider.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 11:42 PM
Sep 2015

My complaint was the fact that this same chart has been posted over and over again here. Twice today alone.

It is like an AstroTurf attempt. And of course, the chart is cherry-picked on Hillary's supposed previous opinions.

It is a meaningless hit piece, just like the "Bernie is a Socialist not a Democrat" posts are.

It would be incorrect to presume that I have any preference in the upcoming presidential primary. I have no intention on tipping my hand here as long as it remains a vat of necrotizing fasciitis with regards to the 2016 Democratic nomination. I post many things here, however I have not expressed any opinion on my choice. And I have been very careful about that.

I prefer to comment on behavior these days. Sadly!

katmille

(213 posts)
86. Thanks
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 03:25 PM
Sep 2015

I used to come to DU for some discussions by people more like me. But now I'm embarrassed that the responses are so snarky and sometimes even inappropriate. No longer willing to sink to the bottom of the toxicity, I don't feel like the discussions are for people like me: a progressive who believes in income equality, women's and family rights, early childhood education, collective bargaining, diplomacy.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
54. There are plenty of things that all the Dem candidates agree on
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:05 AM
Sep 2015

Passing the DREAM Act, immigration reform, reproductive rights, more renewables, etc. That doesn't mean the differences are not important. Maybe someone could make a chart about issues that candidates agree on?

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
59. How does that chart "malign" anybody? How is it "going negative"?
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:43 AM
Sep 2015

It appears to state facts.

I guess if your candidate is afraid of the facts, you might consider it "maligning" or "negative".

But you would be mistaken.

If you disagree with anything on it, you should point that out.

longship

(40,416 posts)
61. It certain appears to state facts.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:02 AM
Sep 2015

However, who can say whether the facts are accurate, or relevant, or maybe just not cherry-picked.

That is the problem with these things. Like "Bernie is not a Democrat; he's a socialist." Or, Benghazi. Or Obamacare.

It is the framing that is important. And this graphic is framed specifically to be against Hillary Clinton. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hit piece, just like the "Bernie is a socialist, not a Democrat" shit is.

If I defend one Democratic candidate from such slime, I will defend them all.

I have no expressed dog in this hunt here on DU. But I care very much about how DU folks act, because that can very much influence voter turnout, which is the big important issue.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
32. He favors immigration reform.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:41 PM
Sep 2015

How could anyone favor a completely open border? The definition of the geography of a country is its borders. You can't have a country with completely open borders. It would have to be called something else.

And open borders would permit an influx of cheap labor. Bernie is right to oppose the idea.

What we should not do is to deport people who are already living here productively. They should have a path to citizenship.

And we should not have H1-B visas. All immigrants should have a path to citizenship.

 

MissDeeds

(7,499 posts)
21. This graphic pretty much sums up the difference
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:28 PM
Sep 2015

in the two candidates. I do not understand how anyone who claims to be a Democrat can support HRC given her track record.

malthaussen

(17,230 posts)
25. HRC has "small donor" contributions similar to Bernie's, though.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:46 PM
Sep 2015

So it isn't like she has no grassroots support and is just the candidate of Big Money. Of course, the other numbers are an order of magnitude in difference.

A statistic that is missing is simply numbers of donors. One would expect that those who contribute money will also contribute their vote. How many will only contribute the latter remains to be seen.

-- Mal

 

DrBulldog

(841 posts)
27. I've passed it along to all my friends.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:06 PM
Sep 2015

Even the ones who refuse to read. Maybe they'll have better success with a chart.

 

Lazy Daisy

(928 posts)
29. The most important difference to me
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 07:16 PM
Sep 2015

Personal Net Worth.

Bernie isn't a new comer to Washington, yet his personal wealth isn't in the millions. That tells a story right there.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
35. Uh....no. Take a look at polling in swing states
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 09:08 PM
Sep 2015

instead of pretending we have a national popular vote.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
74. Republican most likely to defeat Dem nominee in 2016, whoever that may be.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 09:20 AM
Sep 2015

They are still trying to find one, and they are running out of space in the clown car.

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
77. Based on what?
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 10:03 AM
Sep 2015

Her approval numbers are quite low and her disapprovals are high. Those two alone are really bad for someone with her name recognition.

She also can do very little to change the minds of independents and republicans. Bernie does much better with those groups.

appalachiablue

(41,187 posts)
39. K & R. The choice couldn't be clearer, Sanders 2016! Bernie's the first real Democrat in decades.
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:03 PM
Sep 2015


~ If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. ~ Thomas Paine.

dsc

(52,172 posts)
40. I assume you all will ignore me this time too but here goes
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:06 PM
Sep 2015

On the border fence, Sanders voted for the very same fence in 2013 as part of a larger immigration bill just like she did in 2006. On the donations 2700 being 62.9 percent of her donors that is flat out, gold carat false. The math doesn't work. For that to be true the absolute least her average donation could be would be 62.9% of 2700 (that is assuming that the rest of her donors donated 0) which is 1698.30. Her average is no where near that. Oh and here is a list of the donors by category. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019

Bernie has not one but two super pacs operating on his behalf and both have money so that 0 is wrong. She hasn't come out in favor of Keystone so that is wrong. She hasn't endorsed the current form of the TPP so that is wrong. The personal net worth numbers are probably off for both but that isn't either one's fault since the forms are confusing and have odd exclusions. For example the worth of a house is excluded but the amount owed upon it is included (don't ask me why as I have no idea). Her super pac amount is wrong she only raised 15 million not 20 million in her super pac. The banks didn't give her money individuals who work for banks did. Also her top 10 donors have four entities which are clearly not banks (Yale, Creative Artists, Time Warner, and the University of CA) plus a law firm so even that is wrong. 6 + 5 would be 11 not 10 so if five of her top 10 aren't banks then there can't be 6 banks. Sanders supported military intervention in both Bosnia and Afghanistan and to my knowledge never said either were mistaken votes.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
43. One of the those candidates possesses the foresight and the good judgement on major issues that
Mon Sep 7, 2015, 10:20 PM
Sep 2015

is necessary in a Leader.

NYC Liberal

(20,138 posts)
55. Okay.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:12 AM
Sep 2015
It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.


We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.


  • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
  • Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
  • Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  • Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  • Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  • Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  • Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  • Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
  • Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  • Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
  • Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
  • Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
  • Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
  • Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
  • Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.


  • Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
  • Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  • Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  • Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
  • Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
  • Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
  • Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
  • Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)


Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.


If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.


She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”


  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  • Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  • Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  • Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  • Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)


  • Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
  • Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
  • Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
  • Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
  • Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)


Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.


I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.


VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
65. That response is brilliant: it remains polite, focuses on the issues
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:37 AM
Sep 2015

and is in praise of one candidate, not attacking the other candidates.

Please continue posting these positive exchanges of information. They can only help to strengthen shared values.

aquart

(69,014 posts)
80. Ah, I can finally see the graphic.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 10:26 AM
Sep 2015

Nothing about gun legislation, I see. Bernie's weak spot, huh?

Hillary was a New York senator. How many bank headquarters in Vermont? Hillary protected major employers in her state.

Basically, her support was for Obama's policies and efforts.

I guess Obama isn't the messiah anymore.

The thing about votes and "support" is that we know very little about the politics, negotiations and trade offs.

I just realized your graphic talks about "support", not votes. Because Hillary wasn't in the Senate for most of this. She was SOS. So her "support" was working hard for Obama's policies because Hillary Clinton isn't backstabbing tripe.

You might want to remember that.

mnhtnbb

(31,411 posts)
81. Pretty well sums up why I've never been terribly fond of HRC and intend to vote Bernie
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 10:28 AM
Sep 2015

in our primary.

OTOH, if HRC manages to win the nomination, I will vote for her because I can't see
the Republicans nominating anyone I could possibly choose to vote for over HRC.

 

4dsc

(5,787 posts)
85. This doesn't matter to Hillary supporter
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 02:09 PM
Sep 2015

they are not the ones building a revolution within the Democratic Party.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
89. Not mine.
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 04:58 PM
Sep 2015

Tbieve away! It's been posted a couple of times here and is easy to find on the cat-filled intertubes.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A graphic that says all t...