HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » In some ways Hillary Clin...

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:11 AM

 

In some ways Hillary Clinton is a lot closer to being a Republican

Like her flag burning bill for example.

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Bennett. The law would have outlawed flag burning, and called for a punishment of one year in jail and a fine of $100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005


I'd love to hear any Hillary supporters explain why they support this law.

63 replies, 3651 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply In some ways Hillary Clinton is a lot closer to being a Republican (Original post)
Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 OP
Android3.14 Apr 2016 #1
Ferd Berfel Apr 2016 #11
PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #32
silvershadow Apr 2016 #38
Kittycat Apr 2016 #51
RiverLover Apr 2016 #44
JimDandy Apr 2016 #58
CrowCityDem Apr 2016 #2
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #12
jeff47 Apr 2016 #23
dsc Apr 2016 #3
IdaBriggs May 2016 #61
Nye Bevan Apr 2016 #4
Android3.14 Apr 2016 #48
Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #5
onenote Apr 2016 #26
seabeyond Apr 2016 #6
rock Apr 2016 #7
B Calm Apr 2016 #13
LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #25
seabeyond Apr 2016 #30
actslikeacarrot Apr 2016 #8
Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #14
moriah Apr 2016 #9
NurseJackie Apr 2016 #10
MineralMan Apr 2016 #15
ViseGrip Apr 2016 #16
Lil Missy Apr 2016 #17
arcane1 Apr 2016 #27
Lil Missy Apr 2016 #49
Lil Missy Apr 2016 #18
-none Apr 2016 #19
Thirties Child Apr 2016 #36
-none Apr 2016 #39
Arugula Latte Apr 2016 #20
PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #22
Broward Apr 2016 #35
Arugula Latte Apr 2016 #21
onenote Apr 2016 #24
LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #28
arcane1 Apr 2016 #33
onenote Apr 2016 #43
arcane1 Apr 2016 #46
onenote Apr 2016 #47
Sunlei Apr 2016 #34
LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #29
Sunlei Apr 2016 #31
Post removed Apr 2016 #37
onenote Apr 2016 #40
CobaltBlue Apr 2016 #41
BreakfastClub Apr 2016 #42
LineLineReply .
PeaceNikki Apr 2016 #53
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #55
bettyellen Apr 2016 #45
pdsimdars Apr 2016 #50
immoderate Apr 2016 #52
redstateblues Apr 2016 #57
B Calm May 2016 #60
annavictorious Apr 2016 #54
Tarc Apr 2016 #56
Scuba May 2016 #59
Katashi_itto May 2016 #62
oberliner May 2016 #63

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:16 AM

1. "Some"?

 

The number of ways she is like a Republican fluctuates depending who she is addressing, but the adjective you need is "most".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:34 AM

11. LOL That was my initial reaponse too

'Some" just doesn't cover it

If you look back at the Republican platforms from Eisenhower forward - you will recognize the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:05 PM

32. Thread winner.

 

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:33 PM

38. Well, to be fair, with the new paradigm at DU, the real comment had to be couched. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:33 PM

51. Are we allowed to throw markers on...

Liberalism levels of right/left of Lieberman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:28 PM

44. Too many to count, not "some". /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:44 PM

58. Just wait until she *Pivots* n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:17 AM

2. Everyone, even Bernie, has votes in their past that you won't like.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:36 AM

12. The problem with Hillary, though, is that there are so many.

 

So many bad votes, so many bad decisions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:53 PM

23. That wasn't just a vote. She proposed the bill. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:22 AM

3. It is why we don't have an amendment

and I thank her greatly for it. That vote gave cover to those who wanted to vote against the Amendment. The Amendment failed by one vote in the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:08 AM

61. "Gave cover?" Why couldn't they just say NO instead of playing games?

 

It makes them look like idiots when they follow the winds. Winds change. Principles don't -- at least good ones SHOULDN'T.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:22 AM

4. I disagree with Hillary on First Amendment issues.

A bigger example is that (like the ACLU) I support the Citizens United decision on First Amendment grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:57 PM

48. I'm with you on that

 

It's not Citizens United, it's the blatant corporate financing. Ethical politicians turn that money down, and turn to the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:24 AM

5. so craven

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:59 PM

26. So smart. Part of a strategy to protect the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:32 AM

6. In some ways Sanders is a lot closer to being a Republican.

 

Guns, funding F35, support of minute men, putting wedge issues to the side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:13 AM

7. +1

Bazinga!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:39 AM

13. Yea, that's why the NRA gave him a D- rating.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:58 PM

25. Attacking the Democratic Party and their members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:04 PM

30. For sure. The way they campaign. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:15 AM

8. On foreign policy? Absolutely. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to actslikeacarrot (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:39 AM

14. Economic policy, as well.

 

Where she's not like a Republican is on a relatively narrow range of social issues (that, revealingly, big corporate interests don't much care about). She does her best to portray that as actual progressivism...at least when her current audience would be receptive).

She's a transparent phony...and it astonishes me that there are people who seem unable to recognize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:19 AM

9. In some ways, Cartman is a lot closer to being Marlon Brando.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:31 AM

10. You know... you're right!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:43 AM

15. In some ways, lots of people are like lots of things.

I'm not playing this game with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:55 AM

16. How about in many ways....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:57 AM

17. I don't care about the law. A vote you scraped up outta nowhere doesn't make HRC a Republican.

Sounds more like shit stirring to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:00 PM

27. "introduced by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton" is more than "a vote". It was her idea n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 05:04 PM

49. still don't give a shit, and it's still stirring shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:59 AM

18. Bernie isn't even a Democrat - makes him more like a Republican. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:00 PM

19. Working for the people and being Center and Left of Center on issues has nothing to do with anything

Bernie represents what the Democratic party should be, and has the record to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -none (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:16 PM

36. "What the Democratic party should be"...

and once was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thirties Child (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:44 PM

39. I needed a question mark at the end of my Reply title to make it clearer.

Anyway you're correct. We will slide even farther to the Right with Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:02 PM

20. That is such a fail of logic, I'm almost speechless.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:05 PM

22. Lil Missy turning left

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lil Missy (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:10 PM

35. Hahaha, the right-wing mind is a strange beast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:02 PM

21. She supports the death penalty, too.

 

It's disgusting that a so-called Democrat would take that stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:58 PM

24. And now the actual truth. From a Bernie supporter.

I was working the Hill at the time and saw all this unfold first hand.

The flag protection bill the Clinton co-sponsored was part of a coordinated political strategy to defeat a Constitutional flag burning amendment. Indeed, far from being a "republican" proposal, it was strenuously opposed by repubs, which fit perfectly with the strategy.

Here's the history:

Legislation purporting to ban flag burning was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1989, setting the stage for repeated attempts by Republicans to amend the Constitution. The House passed flag amendments to the Constitution by more than the required 2/3 margin in every Congress from 104th (1995) to the 109th (2006). Twice (1995 and 2000) the Senate came within 4 votes of also providing the required 2/3 vote of approval.

Heading into 2005 and 2006, the proponents of a flag burning amendment to the Constitution were very optimistic about their chances for getting to the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate. A resolution to amend the Constitution was introduced in January 2005. In response, an unlikely ally of the anti-amendment forces, Utah Republican Senator Bennett, introduced legislation to protect the flag in April (S.1370). The idea was to provide cover for those opposed to the constitutional amendment. In July 2005, shortly after the House voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment by more than the required 2/3 margin, four Democrats signed up as co-sponsors of the Bennett legislation: Byrd, Carper, Conrad, and Dorgan. The bill, as expected, was buried by the Republican majority -- it did not even get a hearing. By the way, Robert Byrd was considered the foremost Constitutional expert in the Senate. He knew the law he was co-sponsoring was not going to pass, that it would be subject to constitutional challenge if it did, and that it would protect the constitution from being amended.

With a vote on the Constitutional amendment approved by the House still looming in the fall, Bennett introduced a second bill (S. 1911) in October 2005, this time with Clinton as a fig leaf co-sponsor. After it became clear that the Senate was going to vote on the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006, additional Democrats signed on as sponsors: Carper, Boxer, and Pryor. That bill also, as expected, was killed by the repubs without even a hearing, as was intended by its sponsors. However, the very fact that the legislation addressing flag desecration had been introduced gave the sponsors the political cover to vote against the House-passed Constitutional amendment in June 2006. The vote on the amendment was 66-34: one vote shy of the necessary 2/3. Every one of the co-sponsors of the two Bennett bills: Clinton, Boxer, Carper, Conrad, Pryor, Byrd, Dorgan and Bennett voted no on the amendment; had even one of them defected, the amendment would have gone to the states for almost certain ratification.

There is no doubt that signing onto the Bennett bills was an act of self-interest and/or self-preservation by several of the Democrats -- Carper, Clinton, Conrad and Byrd were all up for re-election in 2006. But the reality is that no one expected or intended the legislation they were supporting to go anywhere. Indeed, they knew for a fact it wouldn't go anywhere because the Republican majority would never allow a mere piece of legislation to pass in lieu of their desired Constitutional amendment. By having a group of Democrats and a lead Republican on that legislation, it became possible to kill the Constitutional amendment without any chance of harm befalling citizens' first amendment rights.

I don't call that pandering. I call it smart legislative strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:02 PM

28. You need to post this as an OP so I and others can bookmark it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:06 PM

33. The Constitutional amendment would've never survived the process in the first place.

 

That's a pretty lame defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:24 PM

43. Well its too bad that you weren't around then to give your expert advice to all those novices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #43)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:34 PM

46. Sarcastic personal attack is proof the truth hurts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #46)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:38 PM

47. No its not.

Sorry.

Sarcasm works because it conveys an element of truth. Unless you really are an experienced expert in politics and were on top of the situation in 2006.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:10 PM

34. "smart legislative strategy"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:03 PM

29. Looks like onenote explained it well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:05 PM

31. She's a moderate similar to how Obama has always been. Except she's not as instantly lovable.

A hell of a lot less dangerous for all Americans then ANY Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:53 PM

40. John Lewis is the type of person who would have been a republican during the Reagan years

You make me laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:04 PM

41. Good

 

Iím glad you laugh at neoliberal sellouts like John Lewis and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus Political Action Committee (PAC).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:05 PM

42. You are so very wrong. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:44 PM

53. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #53)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:12 PM

55. gross,homophobe,nut job prince. warning next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:30 PM

45. 1) not in ways most significant to my life and health she isn't. 2) That was a counter proposal to

 

a much harsher law- and would not have increased penalties at all (because it limited it to locations already protected from setting fires). Because of this, the harsher law was not even considered. That is politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:26 PM

50. She is not "closer", but she IS a Republican. . . . . .

 

It's on the ISSUES and not the LABEL.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:33 PM

52. Don't forget cannabis!

 

It's hard to spell, I know.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pdsimdars (Reply #50)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:16 PM

57. Bullshit.Same old smear. Hillary was one of the most liberal Senators in Congress

Ask a Republican is she is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstateblues (Reply #57)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:07 AM

60. Yea, her stance on the failed war on drugs is liberal, lol.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:02 PM

54. It wasn't "her flag burning bill"

 

it was a bi-partisan strategic measure (that, by design, never went further than committee) written to give candidates running for reelection cover for their "no" votes on a Republican introduced amendment to the constitution banning flag burning.

Don't you guys ever wonder why you have to distort both Sanders's and Clinton's records to make your narratives work?
The strategery...it's hard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062701056.html
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/189/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:15 PM

56. I don't support this law. Unlike rigid ideological Bernie Fans, if we don't need to be in lockstep

100% with our preferred candidate. It's ok to disagree on an issue or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:02 AM

59. She voted with every Republican to continue to mangle children with cluster bombs.

 

That sweet old abeula, dismembering children. So very, very Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:12 AM

62. "Some"??!!? Bwahahahahaaa!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Sun May 1, 2016, 08:40 AM

63. Hillary voted with the Democrats in the Senate over 98 percent of the time

 

Hillary and Bernie voted the same way over 90 percent of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread