2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe tripe!
...I know...this post is offal.
So let's make it about the issues:
*happily, I think Clinton has come out against the Keystone pipeline, which is good.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernistas win the irony championship, that's for sure.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I mentioned that I'm happy about Clinton's recent position on Keystone - what are your thoughts?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Unions, climate change, minimum wage, etc. The chart, in addition to containing outright lies, cherry picks things in order to make Hillary look bad and also tries to make things black-and-white that aren't. For example, neither Hillary nor Bernie are either "for" or "against" military intervention. Etc.
This chart has nothing to do with an intelligent discussion of issues. It's childish Hillary-bashing.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)You have the opportunity to specifically correct any wrong information on that graphic.
I agree that HC and BS have similar positions on many issues, as do all the candidates for the D nomination. In my view, BS's positions align more closely to my own. For instance, I lprefer his idea about free college tuition to HC's position on that issue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In my opinion a better way to start a discussion would be with some kind of balanced overall assessment of their positions on major issues, rather than a chart that contains some outright falsehoods and is specifically crafted in order to make Hillary look as bad as possible.
But that presumes that the goal is to have an honest conversation.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Or the death penalty?
How does your candidate's position on those issues align with your own?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)See how easy that was?
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)I do not find the distributor faultless, however, when they fail to do their job.
Your turn.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)You want to settle down and talk like grownups or will you just keep slinging shit?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So no, he doesn't get the NRA vote.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And for some reason, people calling themselves "progressives" are defending that vote. I guess giveaways to corporations are OK as long as those corporations manufacture products that kill 30,000 Americans every year. Or maybe it's just that whatever Bernie does is good by definition.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You can keep beating this dead horse but that won't change the facts.
The chart is correct.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why would a progressive vote for the moderate?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)even though neither of them are perfect on all issues, they're both "good enough" across the board.
NealK
(1,791 posts)Is it because you don't know or you're embarrassed by the answers?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If I had my way, every handgun in this country would be confiscated, melted down, and used for something productive. Short of that, I think holding gun manufacturers responsible for the criminal (or negligent) fatalities caused by their products would be a good thing. It might spur them to agree to more stringent safety measures with their devices (like recognizing a thumbprint or something before firearms can be used). Sorry, I'm pretty naive about this issue.
This is an issue about which BS and I disagree. On the whole, though, I align with his positions more closely than other candidates, O'Malley is probably second.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Or the issues I asked about upthread?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I am against the death penalty. College I think should be affordable for everyone, I'm undecided on whether tuition should be free for everyone, or whether a combination of financial support and low-rate loans would be sufficient. But I'm leaning towards Bernie's free tuition idea.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)is something Sanders talked about in the interview with the Des Moinses Register editorial board.
He talked about how free tuition isn't just an issue for college/high school students. He talked about how the knowledge that they can go to college regardless of affordability would provide hope for elementary-age students who otherwise may not think of higher education as even an option for them.
I volunteered briefly with a mentoring organization for low-income kids, and learned that kids as young as 5th grade can lose interest in school if they have the impression that college is not an option their family can afford (this group would provide mentors for kids starting in 3rd grade, in the hope of catching them before the ennui set in).
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Things like that are why I'm leaning towards free college.
One thing I disagree with Bernie about is how to pay for it. He's proposing paying for it with a financial transaction tax, and I think his proposal their is not the right way to go about it. I do believe we need an FTT, but what he's proposing is a very large tax (0.5%) with a bunch of exemptions so that ordinary investors, pension funds, etc. don't get hurt by it. I think there should be a very small tax (like 0.02%) but with no exemptions at all. One problem with exemptions is that banks and hedge funds get their lawyers to work figuring out how they can claim them. Also, if the tax is large, then traders will start getting around it by trading some kind of derivatives instead. A small tax will raise money without significantly affect the way markets function, and also get rid of most of the destabilizing high-frequency trading -- high frequency traders can't afford to even pay 0.02% per trade.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I can totally see speculators engaging lawyers to try any means they can to get around the tax - and contorting themsleves to fit into any exemptions they can claim.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But they have an exemption for intermediaries -- brokers, dealers, etc. The purpose of this is too keep bid/ask spreads small. If market makers have to pay 0.5% per trade, they can't for example, offer to buy a stock at $50.00 and sell at $50.01, the spread would have to be enough to cover the tax, and that in turn makes transaction costs higher for everyone.
The UK tax is pretty successful, they collect a reasonable amount of revenue. But sophisticated traders find ways around it. One way would be to do whatever the requirements are to qualify as an intermediary. Another is to trade derivatives called "contracts for difference" (CFD), which is basically a synthetic version of the stock: the value of the CFD is exactly the amount of money you would have made or lost if you owned the stock, but you don't actually own it so you don't pay the tax. As far as I can tell, the main reason that CFDs exist at all is for tax avoidance. There's even an industry term for this kind of thing: "regulatory arbitrage".
When I looked at Bernie's proposal, it didn't have an intermediary exemption, so that door might not be open. However, without the intermediary exemption, I'm not sure how they can prevent bid-ask spreads from widening a lot, and if that happens, it increases transaction costs to ordinary investors, even if they don't actually have to pay the tax.
R. P. McMurphy
(833 posts)I agree with you on them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Thank you in advance.
And in that vein how can a lawmaker oppose foreign intervention and continue to vote for appropriation bills that fund foreign wars?
Thank you in advance.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)it seems that voting against going to war is good, while voting to fund the troops once they are there is also good, so they can have the equipment and support they need.
As for drones:
SANDERS: I think what you Martha, what you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective, there are times and places where they have been absolutely countereffective and have caused more problems when they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.
So, I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.
The context of this statement was a discussion of the use of force. Sanders had just told Raddatz that I get very nervous about my Republican friends who keep implying that the only way we could do that is through another war. War is the last resort, not the first resort. Sanders did admit, yeah, there are times when you have to use force, no question about it.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/01/sanders-drones-foreign-policy.html
If I had my way, drones wouldn't even exist. Alas, I'm not in charge.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I happen to believe there are instances where military intervention is appropriate. I also believe we shouldn't credit lawmakers with opposing military intervention when they don't.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Simple as that.
Response to cyberswede (Reply #69)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Any reasonable person believes violence (war) should be a last resort. However that is fundamentally different then suggesting one lawmaker supports military intervention and the other doesn't when they both do.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)She keeps following Bernie's leadership because she sees how popular his message is.
She'll "evolve" to the right of all those issues as soon as the election is done.
As far as "military intervention", she voted for the Iraq War. Any ethical observer would call that being "for" foreign US military intervention.
NealK
(1,791 posts)Where are the links to back up your assertion?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Neocon Invasion of Iraq eg.
Miles apart over the years on Welfare Reform. We know where he stands on that particularly awful women and children and minority destroying piece of Heritage Foundation legislation signed into law by Bill Clinton and pushed as Hillary has proudly boasted by her, 'I really worked to get the votes for that bill'.
We don't know where she stands on this draconian legislation NOW because she hasn't said.
On the Environment, who knows? We KNOW Bernie is 100% for switching as fast as possible away from fossil fuels.
On Gay Rights, for decades Bernie was out there fighting for Marriage Equality, 40 years ago when the very concept wasn't even considered by either party. Hillary was still touting 'the sanctity of marriage' as late as 2013 then finally, after it was safe to do, 'evolved' on an issues she helped delay.
So no, they are not even close on so many, many issues and where Hillary has changed her mind having to admit, too late for those who suffered from policies she supported, for being wrong, time and time again, Sanders has been CONSISTENTLY right and fought for them even when it was not politically 'safe' to do so.
Which is why I support him. THAT is the kind of leader this country needs. Someone who has the good judgement and foresight to see what needs to be done AND sees the consequences of not doing so, and is willing to FIGHT against the odds for what is right.
Response to DanTex (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Platitudes are usually generalized, vague, and said for effect and typically things said that have been drained of content. I think Bernie has been fairly specific about what he wants to support and why. Hillary's support for an increase in minimum wage without giving a number is actually more of a platitude.
Words have meanings.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The issues Forum is <crickets>, not a single post. The Whiner Forum is the most popular....that must be where all the anti-semites hang out.
rock
(13,218 posts)This one is exceptional (including your replies below/above)!
He may as well have said "liar, liar, pants on fire."
There was almost no actual, factual challenge to the meme. The meme is a bit oversimplified, but it is fairly accurate and he did nothing to really "critique" it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But somehow, I doubt DanTex has read their assessment.
rock
(13,218 posts)Or if you prefer, swill. One cannot waste time on debating it.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You don't seem to care that it is fairly accurate or true. You just like his dismissal of factual information which isn't at all a good critique. A good critique would employ counter argumentation or look for places where the above chart is wrong or inaccurate.
Denying factual information is more in the vein of Fox News than anything out and I am not giving the person you lauded praise on anymore credit than I give Fox.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Your criteria for "excellent" or "exceptional" critique is pretty limited.
On edit: Dan and I have been able to discuss issues in this thread; I appreciate his thoughtful posts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)any corrections you'd like to make, discuss maybe? The OP is about issues, not about Bernie's millions of supporters or did you wander into the wrong thread??
Faux pas
(14,583 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's an important distinction since the death penalty is inherently racist.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Neither Clinton nor Sanders can legally coordinate with super PACs, and both have super PACs supporting them, so the number should either be zero for both or something more than zero for both.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Do you know where the actual amounts might be found?
I do have a concern about David Brock's Correct the Record PAC exploiting a loophole to actually coordinate with the HC campaign, though.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm not sure what the FEC schedule is but I'm pretty sure the reporting period hasn't started yet. And one big downside of super PACs is that the last minute spending doesn't get reported until way after the election because of the delay in the process.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Pie in the sky, I know.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Even with public funding of elections, under Citizens United and Speaknow the law is that any non-profit group can spend their money to give any message they want that isn't directly coordinated with a campaign. While we can all see the problems this causes (not to mention the fact that this could be much more transparent even with that same principle), it's hard for me to say when exactly the government should be able to step in and say that expressing a political opinion is illegal.
Even the Citizens United case gets complex when you look at it. It's about a filmmaker who had made a biopic on Hillary Clinton. Yes, it was a hack smear job, but it's a little weird for me to say that the FEC gets to decide that a filmmaker can't screen a film he's made.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)... maybe she saw this chart...
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If posters don't like the information on the graphic, they should share information that adds more detail or refutes the info, or whatever.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Sorry, didn't spot it
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)consistency on issues as important as this. Which is why I support Bernie Sanders.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It seems like she could have shoved it through at State rather than been so lukewarm if it was something she liked.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I think the main objection against her with that issue is that she doesn't seem to find it awfully significant, that's the impression I've ben given, anyway.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, there's a pipeline now, and they want it to be in a different place. There's pros and cons but this always struck me as being more about getting people to care about the environment than it was about the particulars of the policy.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)She called it a "distraction" and she really doesn't want it as part of the debate any longer. If she was really opposed she could have said it boldly, the way she referred to it is was as though she was sending signals to both industry and environmentalists at the same time in hopes to maintain both.
If she wins, she will trade off the Keystone opposition for... practically anything.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)NealK
(1,791 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)impressive it's easy to see why despite his lack of name recognition, he has in just few months narrowed the gap NATIONALLY now to just 10 points between him and Hillary.
And he ignores the smear mongers, just keeps talking about issues, and continues his upward trend as more and more people get to know him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)destroyed the lives of so many people all over the world. Too bad our own party didn't take the opportunity to start the prosecutions and to break up those corrupt institutions.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... Clinton does not and did not support either keystone or the TPP. Her position has been* more nuanced and deliberative than a simple yes or no. She voted against fast track privilege for w.
Clinton isn't a locked in ideologue with simple fixed answers to issues that are complex and situational in nature - which is a virtue and a strength .
* She now has taken a definitive stance on keystone - and it was opposed, not supported.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I noted in my OP that she has come out against the Keystone pipeline (which is good).
I wish she would come out decisively against the TPP; she seemed to support it in her book.
Clinton has very good positions on a lot of issues; Sanders just aligns more with my own views.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... to simplify stances. However, juxtaposed with the tripe photo the impression is less than fair and balanced. You might consider removing it so the summary chart can be judged on its merits without a divisive distraction .
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)move away from fossil fuels to alternative energy, that anyone still supporting these old policies seems almost like a dinosaur at this point.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sander: Strongly Opposed
Clinton: Supports
Why didn't that one make the list?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sanders has vote aftervote after vote where he supported giving financial aid to foreign armies. Your chart is blatantly false.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Two dishonest things on your chart and the omission of Sanders fighting to stop over ten million people from a path to citizenship. Blocking that bill is one of Sanders greatest legislative victories and it didn't make the list. So we have his greatest legislative victory being omitted and multiple blatant falsehoods.
I see. This is also a coverup for him. He fought relentlessly against a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people while Hillary, Obama, Ted Kennedy and Biden supported it and you are spinning it as Sanders being opposed to a fence. No. He was opposed to a pathway to citizenship for economic reasons. This chart isn't just dishonest, it is purposefully deceptive in a manner to make the left look bad. There is a name for that.
Back in the day if anyone brought a lie here it would be immediately fact checked. Here we have multiple lies in one op and it is being cheered.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)like Sherrod Brown and Tom Harkin (my own senator at the time).
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/28/immigration.vote.rollcall/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007
Sanders was clearly in the labor camp on that vote.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190#ixzz3mt3wL3mF
(and my OP clearly pointed out Clinton's change on Keystone, which is good).
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Well I'll be damned, another meme bites the dust.
What's up next?
Is it time for the Gun Nut one to be recycled?
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)hc wants to continue the failed war on drugs even when it comes to medical mj
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)for TRUTH.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I do not buy the right wing spin on the email scandal.
I just liked how wipe! rhymes with tripe!
ymmv
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You funny too!
Everybody funny!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The list is much longer than this