Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 5, 2016 - 08:53am PT
|
[I'm opening this new thread in an attempt to consolidate the Hillary & Bernie threads--let's discuss both candidates in one place!]
Let's face it, the Democrat Debates are like the playoffs between the two teams who are sure to win the crown--simply, they are the game to watch. Unless the Republicans are extremely successful in suppressing the vote, either Sanders or Clinton will be our next POTUS.
The debate last night was a gloves-off match between two formidable foes. Both threw some body punches that shook the other's foundation.
My vote is still for the true progressive, even though his foreign policy is a bit weak (like when he totally botched the question on troops in Afghanistan).
But, no matter how she tries to look like she is for the every-day American, Clinton still took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman for closed-door speeches. She voted for the military-industrial complex in 2002. Can she really put on different shoes?
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabond movin on
|
|
Sanders could have brought up Blair Effron after Clinton herself slammed what are known as corporate "inversions," specifically citing the company Johnson Controls, which pulled off an egregious example of a move done to reduce a company's U.S. tax bill. Effron is a founding partner of Centerview Partners, an investment firm that played a major role in the Johnson inversion.
Effron has raised at least $100,000 for Clinton's campaign, and it has been widely reported that he hopes to win a job in the Treasury Department. He has been referred to in print as one of the very few people Clinton listens to when it comes to economic policy.
Clinton's claim that campaign money has never influenced her raises two possible scenarios, both of them odd: Either Effron opposes inversions but pushes them anyway in the private sector, and advises Clinton against them -- or Effron supports inversions, and Clinton ignores the input of one of her top advisers on a key issue.
There is, of course, a third possibility: Effron is just fine with inversions, and is able to articulately defend them in conversations with Hillary Clinton, conversations that he is able to have because he is such a high-dollar donor. Clinton, to be sure, can still make up her own mind, but opponents of inversions have reason to worry, knowing that one of her key advisers is such a leading player on the opposite side.
Johnson Controls, meanwhile, has given at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Effron is an advisory council member of “The Hamilton Project," which has been called “Clinton's economic team in waiting.” The Hamilton Project was founded by Robert Rubin, who was President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, famously an alum of Goldman Sachs and the prime driver of deregulation during the 1990s, and still a major influence on the party today. He now works with Effron at his boutique firm Centerview Partners.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_us_56b420fee4b01d80b245cd2c
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2016 - 12:34pm PT
|
There is still some time for Sanders to pull out some skeletons like this, Sparky. Frankly, I'm ready to hear some fresh rhetoric from him in the debates.
Clinton did make a good point last night, which is she's faced a grilling from the Republicans over the past number of years. While the email issue is still getting spit-time, only time will tell how she comes out of that one, rare, medium-rare, or full-blown well done.
I wonder, what will those Republican cranksters dig up on Sanders. Anybody have inklings?
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Do you give a sh#t about Hillary's 'skeletons' because it reflects on her ethics or morality (and how that might affect her leadership), or are you primarily concerned about how such skeletons would impact her electability?
If the former, dude, welcome to politics. Stay in it as long as she has, and there's gonna be closetsful of 'em. I don't see her making some kind of Bush-NeoCon decisions in the WH, no matter what those skeletons might have been.
If that latter, well, that's a valid concern. In the same vein of electability concern, though, it ain't gonna happen for Bernie, either. No doubt he'll have some skeletons fall out, or at least as likely, the GOP will spin some non-issue into an 'issue' and swiftboat his Vermont arse.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Hillary won that debate.
I'm a Bernie supporter, but she showed more depth on foriegn policy.
Whether that depth equals decisions I agree with or not is still up in the air.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2016 - 12:54pm PT
|
I give a sh#t about Clinton's skeletons because I believe it reflects her excitability in the General.
And that is a serious concern.
Why does Sanders out-poll Clinton when pitched against any Republican?
This is why.
... GOP will spin some non-issue into an 'issue' and swiftboat his Vermont arse.
I'm not convinced. He worked hard to pass real veterans benefits. He speaks a tune that resonates with most Americans.
There is no doubt that Clinton has more foreign policy expertise. Sanders made that clear to us all last night. Another reason why swift-boating will be a problem--his Aikido politics. Take the force of a punch and use it against the attacker.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Excitablity? Like she'll get overly excited and have a Howard Dean moment?
Or the voters won't get excited enough to vote for her?
Either way, sounds like you are more concerned about her potential to win, than the nature of the skeletons in her closet.
Edit: Dude, there have been several very electable, honorable Democrats over the years with actual, valid, extensive military experience that got themselves swiftboated right out of the election. What makes you think Bernie is going to be any more savvy about protecting himself from that than anyone else?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I wonder, what will those Republican cranksters dig up on Sanders. Anybody have inklings?
They don't actually have to do much digging.
-He identifies as a "socialist"----and that is a deal killer for many Americans, no matter how he spins it, or how it is nuanced.
-His description of how he will move to a single payor medical system involves, in HIS words, "massive tax increases on the middle class"
This feeds into the first problem
It is a deal killer from the start
It demonstrates that he does not actually understand the issue, because it is actually not true, but he doesn't know that, and doesn't know how to sell it.
-He has been a remarkably ineffective Senator, and doesn't know how to get things done.
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabond movin on
|
|
Idiots like Lloyd Blankfein - CEO of Goldman Sachs are coming out claiming they're the victims here.
I don't know about you, but I'm f*#king tired justice being manipulated for the few. Hillary is establishment, period. She is well entrenched and groomed. People putting up excuses such as "everyone has skeletons in their closet" is pathetic. We get the government we deserve. The same ole schtick aint cuttin the mustard any more for me and a great majority of the country.
When the Bernie thread started, many many people stated he wouldn't get off the ground. It's unrealistic. Blah, blah, blah...look at his position now.
Bottom line is there are people with vision and people who follow.
Shame on those who hold back/sacrifice their own ideals because they think it's impossible to win. "It just doesn't work that way...you're only dreaming...ImPOSSIBLE..."
If everyone votes their true conscious, we would all be better off. People have allowed too much manufactured fear to distort their beliefs.
Case in point:
"When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous to the economy, then he's just repeating another variation of 'too big to fail,' 'too big to jail,' 'too big to even prosecute.'"
-Elizabeth Warren
Can you believe the balls on that bull? It's time for REAL CHANGE.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2016 - 01:55pm PT
|
Electability, not excitability. Sorry, spell-check error.
apogee, I am concerned about a few things with Clinton. First and foremost, her ties to Wall Street. Second, her hawkishness. What do I like about her? She has great foreign policy experience. But, I think she'll change her tune to what gets her elected. We've seen it.
I agree, Sanders has flaws. But, his values have been consistent for decades. And, if you think Clinton is immune to getting swift-boated, you're not thinking objectively.
Ken, you are wrong, he does not identify as a "socialist." He identifies as a "democratic socialist." He will have a chance to define this in any Dem/Rep debate.
And do you have a pointer to where Sanders said "massive tax increases on the middle class."? I looked, but couldn't find it. Now you are sounding like FOX News, which is OK because FOX News exists, and you have to look at what they are saying.
As a note, I have a relative who's a staunch right-winger. I see what they have to say about Clinton, and I see what they have to say about Sanders. Their hatred for Clinton runs very deep. With Sanders, they don't really have much. Like Ken, his list runs flat. In the end, it's what the minds of the voters think that counts.
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabond movin on
|
|
Bobinc,
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000275
Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2012, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Goldman Sachs $16,500 $1,500 $15,000
Service Employees International Union $10,000 $0 $10,000
KPMG LLP $8,000 $0 $8,000
Nixon Peabody LLP $7,500 $7,500 $0
UBS AG $7,500 $2,500 $5,000
Even though Barney is now retired, I'm sure there are connections he's made to make his life more comfortable.
http://www.youngprogressivevoices.com/2015/07/24/rebuttal-barney-franks-attack-sanders/
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
Don't get me wrong: I'm not a Clinton apologist in the least. But I want someone in the White House who can veto the crazy stuff that might get through Congress for quite awhile (until the gerrymandered districting can get reworked (hopefully in my lifetime)) and who can nominate the 3-5 SCOTUS positions that will likely come open fairly soon. Can Bernie get to 273 EVs? Maybe. How, exactly, can he get there?
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabond movin on
|
|
By staying true to his message. That won't be a problem.
Real change comes from the ground up.
BTW, your point " who can nominate the 3-5 SCOTUS positions that will likely come open fairly soon" is excellent.
I don't want the establishment making those nominations....do you?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2016 - 02:16pm PT
|
I wish we lived in a country where the most relevant political dispute was over how far to the liberal side the electorate was prepared to go. Until we do — and I will continue to work with Sanders and others to get us there — spending our resources on an intraparty struggle rather than on working to defeat our very well-funded conservative opponents is self-indulgence, not effective political action.
 Barney Frank
It's certainly a good article, and not something to take without merit.
I voted for Nader, I voted for my conscience and I was happy I was able to. However, if I lived in Florida I would have never voted for him.
Is the dialogue between Sanders and Clinton bad for Clinton, as Frank says? Personally I don't think so. In contrast, I think the dialogue is healthy for our nation.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
-He identifies as a "socialist"----and that is a deal killer for many Americans, no matter how he spins it, or how it is nuanced.
yeah, when redstaters hear the word socialist, they immediately think communist, especially after the repubs get done spinning it.
Don't forget, many 'mericans are stoopid.
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
K-man's point about Nader is a good one. It's more convenient to vote your conscience when you are in a blue state.
Remember the Jesse Jackson election cycles? Very exciting at the time. But it turned out many people wanted a benevolent monarch rather than a president...
Remember Carter? An ethical, well-intentioned man. But he made so many enemies in his first 100 days that it crippled him for the rest of his administration.
It looks pretty likely our next President will be a Democrat. But downticket, things are a lot more troublesome. To the extent we can do much, that's where we should direct our efforts. And that's a long-term process, not one that most people are very interested in.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
The right wing media would gut him alive. It would almost certainly work, too. It would be cruel, it would be unfair, but they would destroy him.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"Don't get me wrong: I'm not a Clinton apologist in the least. But I want someone in the White House who can veto the crazy stuff that might get through Congress for quite awhile"
Ditto for me precisely
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!