What ideological split? There isn't one.

[YouDig]

The meme is that this is different than 2008 because this time it's ideological, not personal.

But it's not. Go to Hillary's website and see what she stands for. It's a big list of strongly progressive policies. Sure, pick some nits here and there, but what she stands for is very close to what Bernie stands for.

I know what comes next. Berners will say, sure, on paper she sounds progressive now, but back in 1971 she cheated on a crossword puzzle, so I can never trust her, she's going to become a right-winger once in office.

OK. But that's not an ideological split, it's a personal one. They're fine with Hillary's policies, they just don't like Hillary.

It's a personal thing, like 2008, where Clinton and Obama also ran on basically the same policies.

[morningfog]

1. Trade and foreign policy. Single payer health care. Tuition-free college.

These are not nits.

[YouDig]

3. Even on those issues they are pretty close.

Hillary wants universal healthcare, just not single payer. Same goal, different means. She wants college to be affordable for everyone who wants to go. Same goal, different means. Foreign policy, especially Isreal, OK, differences there, probably the biggest one. Trade, she's opposed to TPP, and has made it clear that she only wants fair trade with enforceable labor and environmental laws.

[morningfog]

6. No, they really are not close at all.

[tonyt53]

29. Only if a person doesn't accept facts.

[HooptieWagon]

46. If Hillary was close, then she's stupid not to compromise to get the left vote.

Of course, the reality is that she refuses to compromise because she's not close at all. There's a vast gulf separating the center-right Clinton and the Center-left Progressives...and addressing the Center-left would jeopardize her cozy corporate relationships.

[JonLeibowitz]

30. Hillary does not want universal healthcare. She wants universal coverage.

These are not the same.

[YouDig]

34. What is the difference, as you see it?

[Luminous Animal]

38. Coverage does not mean adequate access to health care. If you cannot

afford the deductibles and co-pays, you cannot access healthcare.

[YouDig]

41. Ok, I see. SP systems sometimes have deductibles and co-pays too, though.

And word choice aside, it's clear that she wants everyone to have access to healthcare in a way they can actually afford, that's part of her stump speech even. It's not like she thinks it would be OK if everyone had health insurance but half of the people could never use it. The goal is the same as Bernie's.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. One might see the word choices as a way to mask the fact hag she disagrees with universal healthcare

[YouDig]

58. I guess. I would put that in the "personal/don't trust her" column though.

She really does have pretty aggressive policies though.

[Luminous Animal]

50. Not even close to what we in the U.S. pay out of pocket.

And yes, "ways that they can actually afford" = subsidizing the insurance industry.

[YouDig]

53. True. We're the most expensive by far, and pay more out of pocket.

It's questionable whether single payer would make that much difference to our costs though. Most of it is not on the insurance side, but the delivery side.

No, she doesn't want to subsidize the insurance industry, what she wants to do is regulate premium rises, and then give people tax credits to pay for copays and deductible. ACA already caps the amount that insurance companies can use for profit or administrative overhead. Insurance industry profits are a very small part of our healthcare costs.

You could say like as a principle that there shouldn't be profit being made in health insurance. OK. But does that extend to healthcare delivery too? That would hard. Personally, I think what's important is people getting access to care, whether it's private or public is not a big deal.

[JonLeibowitz]

39. Ballooning healthcare costs and out of pocket expenses.

Even those with coverage under ACA often can not afford the procedures they need. That will not be fixed with higher rates of coverage.

Also she doesn't address how the homeless are covered.

[YouDig]

45. That is true. But one of her main agendas focuses on exactly that problem.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

I don't know how she plans on addressing healthcare for the homeless, that's a good point.

[Luminous Animal]

52. By subsidizing the insurance and pharma industries.

Provide a new, progressive refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per family for excessive out-of-pocket costs. For families that still struggle with prescription drug costs even after out-of-pocket limits on drug spending and free primary care visits, Clinton’s plan will provide progressive, targeted new relief. Americans with health coverage will be eligible for a new refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 for an individual, or $5,000 for a family, available to those with substantial out-of-pocket health care costs. The credit will be available to insured Americans with qualifying out-of-pocket health expenses in excess of five percent of their income, and who are not eligible for Medicare or claiming existing deductions for medical costs. This refundable, progressive credit will help middle-class Americans who may not benefit as much from currently-available deductions for medical expenses. This tax cut will be fully paid for by demanding rebates from drug manufacturers and asking the most fortunate to pay their fair share.

Furthermore, how does a tax credit on April 15th, help pay for heart medicine on June 15th? Not to mention making tax forms even more complicated.

[YouDig]

56. It's not a subsidy of insurance, and definitely not a subsidy of pharma.

The money will come from pharma rebates (basically a tax on pharma) and from a tax on the rich. And the money goes directly to people for use in paying for healthcare.

[Luminous Animal]

61. Yes. Paying for healthcare to private industry then getting a tax incentive.

The money FIRST goes to industry, then to the individual.

I can't find her "tax on the rich" scheme anywhere.

[YouDig]

65. From your excerpt it says:

"This tax cut will be fully paid for by demanding rebates from drug manufacturers and asking the most fortunate to pay their fair share."

Asking the most fortunate to pay their fair share is a tax on the rich, Bernie uses the same language.

And the subsidy is for people to spend on care. Yeah, it goes to private healthcare providers, but it's like, do you think food stamps are a subsidy for the supermarket industry? It's like that.

[JonLeibowitz]

68. Supermarkets compete in a huge way to keep prices as low as possible

Think that happens in healthcare? Nope.

And the point is that "tax on the rich" is exceedingly vague and could mean any of a number of things -- Sanders has been specific about tax increases.

[YouDig]

73. Insurance companies also compete. Competition in healthcare delivery is more of a mess, and in some

states health insurance competition could be more vigorous. On the other hand, insurance companies are much more heavily regulated than supermarkets, for example the amount of premiums they can use for administrative costs or profits is capped by law. And the fact that there are imperfections in the market isn't a reason to be opposed to subsidizing people so they can afford co-pays. It's still a subsidy for people, paid for by a tax on pharma and rich people.

And she also wants to improve the insurance market with a public option that would compete with all private insurers.

And Hillary has detailed her tax proposals. A surcharge over 5 million, the buffet rule, closing the hedge fund loophole, increased capital gains, and so on. All progressive.

[Luminous Animal]

70. Yes. Food stamps are a subsidy for the supermarket industry. A living wage would mitigate

that.

Walmart's low wages cost taxpayers over 6 billion a year.

[MillennialDem]

107. Hillary doesn't want to blow up the health insurance industries. At best she wants a public

option and to strengthen ACA regulations on insurers and give more subsidies to low and mid income shoppers.

Bernie wants medicare for all.

[YouDig]

110. That's true, but both want universal healthcare. Just by different means.

Bernie wants all government insurance, Hillary wants combination of public private.

[MillennialDem]

115. In a private system, people will always slip through the cracks. Also, it will still tie

people to their employers, because they will be getting a specific plan for a specific price etc. Quitting will lead to an unknown plan at an unknown price.

[larkrake]

75. she is in bed with insurance companies. single payer eliminates those vampires

[thesquanderer]

36. Health care? TPP? Not as close as you suggest.

re: "Hillary wants universal healthcare, just not single payer. Same goal, different means. "

No, Hillary wants universal private for-profit health insurance, That's not the same as wanting universal healthcare.

While the ACA was a lot better than the nothing we had before, the basic approach is still second rate. People must buy health insurance, but the deductibles and copays are such that they often end up being forced into buying health insurance that they can't afford to use except in emergency. Which means they are paying full coverage rates for what is essentially only catastrophic coverage (great for the insurance companies). I don't know a better way to "fix" healthcare than to cut out the for-profit companies who serve as a barrier between you and your doctors, whose job it is to make money while providing no health service. There is basically this whole layer between you and your healthcare who see their job largely as how to figure out ways to NOT cover you, because their primary function is to earn a profit, not to take care of patients.

re: "she's opposed to TPP"

You really believe that? It was the "gold standard" and now she's ostensibly unhappy with some of the details. So what happens if a couple of details are changed? Bingo, she can turn around an support it again. Bernie is against the entire concept of the thing.

[YouDig]

44. Universal private for-profit health insurance is a means to universal healthcare.

But that's not what she wants. A big part of the system is already government. She's in favor of a public option, which would be more government. What she is in favor of is a hybrid of private insurance and government coverage. And that model exists successfully in the world in other places.

The problem with premiums too high and out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copays being unaffordable is one that she is aware of and wants to fix. It's one of her main things.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

[larkrake]

78. fix it by eliminating insurance co. Single payer may increase taxes, but not as much as insurance

would cost

[YouDig]

83. That is one way. But not the only way. And either way is going to be hard.

[larkrake]

85. almost impossible

[Fawke Em]

72. No... she and Bernie are miles apart.

She wants to continue Obamacare by keeping the insurance companies in the loop. Bernie wants true single payer.

She wants to keep banksters in the loop in offering "affordable" college loans. Bernie wants Wall Street to pay for public college for those who qualify.

She is NOT opposed to TPP no matter what flies out of her mouth. Her emails and her previous actions tell me that when the fix that comma she doesn't like (in the way it's written), she'll be gung ho in favor of it.

She's not opposed to fracking.

And she's a neocon on foreign policy, which has proven to be disastrous.

[pangaia]

82. Right on the money.

BTW, I was born on Guy Fawkes' Day.

How's them potatoes?

[vintx]

129. It's sad to see the lies posted here day in and day out

in the attempt to sugar coat her candidacy

Thank you for spelling out the bitter truth

[Armstead]

134. Same goal different means? No. the means are important.

Forcing people to buy crappy overpriced private insurance is not the same as opening up public coverage based on income.

Totally different goals.

[Exilednight]

135. one by one.

Anything other than single payer is not universal. She has no real plan to fill the gap that Obama left behind with Obamacare.

There's a difference between affordable and making college free. Yes, Bernie's plan does cost money to taxpayers, but studies show that it pays huge dividens.
With Hillary's plan a large percentage of students still have to pay.


She had a hand in negotiations on TPP. To come out against it now is pandering at best.

[YouDig]

141. Why do you say anything but single payer is not universal? It's just not true.

Universal means everybody gets it, single payer means the government is the only insurer. They have nothing to do with each other. You can have either one without the other.

College plans there's a difference, but they have the same objective, and both would end up using taxpayer money to pay for college for people who currently can't afford it. Bernie just goes farther, but they are in the same direction.

Trade I give you, there are significant differences. Probably the biggest issue of difference between them, though still Hillary is in favor of strong environmental regulations and labor in trade deals. Bernie is basically against all trade deals. I side with Hillary on that.

[kcjohn1]

2. Couldn't disagree with you more

Even on policy there are big differences I can go into, but the huge difference is world view.

Hillary as corporatist thinks the way to fix our problems is though the free market and current system in place. If we just tweak here and there and gain more efficiency, her rich friends can get richer, and at same time the regular poor folks will also be better off.

That is the approach that has gotten to this point.

[YouDig]

10. But the "world view" thing is a personal distinction.

The policies she is proposing would not make the rich richer. She is very strongly pro-labor, wants to increase min wage, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, stronger financial regulation, investment in clean energy jobs, and the list goes on. If you didn't know it was "Hillary" proposing all that, there's no way to call it "corporatist."

Opposing her because she's "Hillary the corporatist" is a personal objection, not a policy one.

[kcjohn1]

35. Ok let's go through them

She is pro labor but has supported virtually all trade deals

$12 vs $15

Single payer vs Health care through profit model

Extending k-12 education funding to college vs keeping current paid model

Banning fracking vs Exporting it world wide

Banks to big and need to be broken vs they are just fine, we just need to watch them closer, btw ignore all this money we are giving them.

The difference between then is similar to the Dem vs GOP divide when the GOP was still viable and rational party

[YouDig]

51. OK.

There's no doubt that she is more pro-trade than Bernie. She voted for most trade deals when she was in congress, but not all, Bernie against all I think. And she's against TPP, though did support it before that. But this doesn't mean she's anti-labor. She's basically universally in favor of union rights, including employee free choice act, and has tons of labor support. And on trade, she's always made clear that she thinks that there need to be enforceable labor standards as well as environment.

12v15 either would be a huge increase over what it is now. Bottom line, both want huge increases in the minimum wage.

Single payer, both want universal healthcare, just by different means.

Both also want affordable college for anyone who wants to go, again through different means.

Environment they are very close. She has said many times that she wants fracking regulated so much it would barely happen anymore. Both want to drasticlly reduce climate impact, both want big renewable investments. The fracking thing from Obama/Clinton is to replace coal with natural gas, since natural gas has less climate impact. Agree or disagree with the strategy, but its a climate strategy, not a pro-big-oil thing.

Financial regulation, again, very close, both want tighter regulations. The authority to break up banks is already there with Dodd Frank. In terms of non-bank-financial-institutions, most people consider her proposals tighter. There's this impression that she's just giving it all away to Wall Street, but what she actually stands for is not that.

Overall, yeah, Bernie goes farther on all these issues. But, with the exception of trade, they are both advocating huge leaps to the left from the status quo. That's the key thing.

[QC]

4. "and unify the party later" n/t

[morningfog]

7. I guess today is the day!

[QC]

15. Yep, looks like the brocking point memo has gone out. n/t

[YouDig]

19. Do you really believe that I'm getting paid to post by David Brock? I'm not, by the way.

[frylock]

49. Yes, I do.

[mythology]

71. Are there any other things you want to admit believing without any evidence?

At least everybody can see this post and realize that you shouldn't be listened to as you need no proof just an unsupported suspicion.

I'm sure Joe McCarthy would approve of your approach. It's sad that asinine posts like yours have become common here at DU. Hopefully once the primary season is over such unsubstantiated nonsense will go back to not being allowed.

[frylock]

74. My proof.

Renowned shitbag, David Brock, announces that he has hired people to take to internet discussion boards to "Correct the Record". Shortly thereafter, several very aggressive Hillary supporters show up here using the same talking points. Coincidence?

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Yup

It is funny I must admit. Worst offenders and all that

[virtualobserver]

5. you love to watch yourself type

[SandersDem]

8. The difference

is corruption and consistency

[YouDig]

20. I would describe those as personal differences, not ideological. Do you agree?

[SandersDem]

26. Ok then let me add the following..

Hillary's top ten donors, same as Jeb Bush.

Hillary promoted fracking worldwide.

I do not believe that when so much money is raised via Wall Street, that there is any intention to break up the big banks and institute real Wall Street reform.

In terms on the NSA and spying on US citizens, Bernie is against, there is no comment from HC

HC favors for profit prisons, Bernie does not.

Bernie favors a Carbon Tax, HC does not.

I can go on....

[YouDig]

33. OK. Good points.

Donors, not about policy. And they aren't the same people donating, they just have jobs at the same companies. I hope you wouldn't judge my political views from what my co-workers say.

Fracking yes, but as she has said, she wants it regulated so much that there would be very little of it. The reason for fracking from Obama/Clinton is not because they want to enrich big oil, it's because nat gas replaces coal. And nat gas is cleaner, including extraction costs (coal extraction is horrible), than coal. Agree or disagree with the strategy, but the objective is reducing climate emissions. And overall she has a very strong climate agenda, we'd all be blessed if half of it got passed.

Wall Street money, OK, I hear you, but this is a personal trust issue, not a policy issue.

NSA spying you are right, she is more pro-spying than Bernie. Unlike the environment, this is a clearer difference.

Carbon tax, see above. Also, she's for cap-and-trade, different means to the same end of reducing emissions.

[thesquanderer]

43. re: "Wall Street money, OK, I hear you, but this is a personal trust issue, not a policy issue. "

To some extent, yes, but there are also policy differences. Bernie wants to reinstate a version of Glass Steagall, she doesn't. Yes, she wants to do some other things, but what not do that as well? He says the banks which are already bigger than they were when they were deemed too big to fail need to be broken up, Hillary is not in favor of that. Bernie wants to institute a financial transaction tax, both to raise revenue (for his college program) but also to put a bit of a brake on what he calls "risky and unproductive high-speed trading," Hillary is not for that.

[YouDig]

48. These are policy difference.

Glass Steagall is probably a good idea in my opinion. But it's gotten blown out of proportion in terms of its role. I agree with you that she could do the other regulations she proposes as well as Glass-Steagall, it's not one or the other. On the other hand, her proposals for "shadow-banking" regulations have gotten more praise than Bernie's.

The transaction tax, also probably a good idea, though from what I've read Bernie's isn't the best way to implement it, and it could hurt regular investors. Hillary at one point talked about a smaller tax designed specifically to stop high-speed trading, but have less effect on regular investors. I don't know if she's still for that, but she's at least aware of the problem of high-speed trading.

But big picture here, they both want to expand on Dodd-Frank, but Bernie does want farther. Under Dodd-Frank there is already authority to break up big banks. And also, banks deemed systematically important (or whatever the term is) are subject to extra regulations. So we've come a pretty long way there already.

Another thing she wants to do is close the loophole that lets hedge fund managers pay super-low tax rates.

If she were really just trying to protect Wall Street, she would do what the GOP does, which is try to get rid of Dodd-Frank altogether.

[thesquanderer]

54. re: "Under Dodd-Frank there is already authority to break up big banks."

That's true. That's why Sanders can do it (as he properly answered in the infamous Daily News interview, an answer that the paper spun against him). The point isn't whether or not the authority is there, we agree that it is. The difference is that Sanders has declared that he actually intends to use it (against banks that are already bigger than they were when they were first determined to be TBTF), while Clinton has said that she does not feel that the big banks as they are now should be broken up.

re: "her proposals for 'shadow-banking' regulations have gotten more praise than Bernie's. " I know she received that praise from Krugman, who has taken the not-Bernie perspective at every possible opportunity. But I'm not sure that, overall, her plan has gotten more praise than Bernie's. Link?

[hobbit709]

9. If you believe that, you are clueless.

If you don't believe that, then you are just stirring for whatever reason.

[brewens]

11. The catch is that I would have to actually believe her and I don't. n/t

[YouDig]

14. Yeah, the trust issue, but it's a personal thing, not ideological or policy.

[VulgarPoet]

12. "and unify the party later".

A bunch of pretty looking ideals on a pretty formatted website that we're all expecting her to completely sell out on in the first hundred days. Campaign policies coming from career politicians are little better than lies as it is. I'd have taken the career statesman, rather than the career politician-- at least he didn't have the record of flipping on political expedience, even in the highly unlikely case that he was as full of shit as Clinton is.

[YouDig]

18. OK, but at least you agree that the ideals are "pretty looking". That's some common ground.

It's only a webpage, but if we start there, then there really is a lot of common ground. Very little of it is objectionable to progressives, most of it would be celebrated by I would think most progressives.

So if we're going to unify, there's already a blueprint. The problem is personally people don't trust Hillary. Yeah, it's a tough one, but it's a personal thing. It's the person that isn't trusted.

[seabeyond]

22. No we are not "all" expecting. AND.... Sanders pretty little speech of fairy dust can be discussed

in the same manner, and probably more on point.

Sanders campaign is little more than lies at best, as politicians tend to be. Sanders being a career politician.

He is just willing to be an hypocrite at every turn. Wall street, Corp, Bank donations along with oil and fracking. Votin on all war and military but one. Single payer won't work then run on it. Sold his vote to Democrats in '91. Super Pacs. Most money spent this campaign. Dissing Democratic party non stop for 4 decades then running as one.

Hypocrisy at its best.

[demmiblue]

13. C'mon, Skinner... do something about this. n/t

[MineralMan]

24. What would you like Skinner to do?

The poster simply directed people to check out the leading candidate's website and compare her ideas. Why would Skinner object to that in any way?

[Bluenorthwest]

154. He affects to have civility as an objective. This OP is bait. Full of characterization and smearing.

And of course, it is defended by long term DUers from the right side of the Party.

[seabeyond]

16. Absolutely. Further with college, Wallstreet, Corps, and Healthcare, Clinton is more progressive in

her plans because she levels out the field, comprehensive and doable.

But no, there is not the great Divide Sanders and his pals want to make of it.

[SamKnause]

17. Disqualify, destroy, and unite the party later. (Hillary campaign strategy)

There will be no uniting.

You are one of the worst offenders.

You must think we are all fools.

[seabeyond]

27. Suggesting there is not a big split between Sanders and Clinton is disqualifying, destroying....

What, exactly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. LMAO

[thesquanderer]

25. It's also the difference between someone who has always said these things...

...vs. someone who appears to have tacked left recently for political expediency. She offered a number of of late arriving "bernie light" position statements (i.e. TPP/NAFTA, keystone pipeline, private prisons, wall street regulation) which often ran counter to earlier positions, whereas Bernie has been consistent on these things forever, which is a good indication of true convictions. And there are still significant differences. Death penalty, fracking, patriot act, syrian no-fly zone (i.e. indication of general hawkishness), the desirability of single payer as a long term goal, are ideological differences. So no, I don't but that the differences are only personal assessments and not ideological, though the personal assessments (honest/trustworthy, how truly committed she is to the more liberal side of her platform) are a factor as well.

[LonePirate]

28. I hope you have a thick skin as you're going to need it.

You will be (and are being) raked over the coals by those who think it is heresy to equate Bernie and Hillary.

[riderinthestorm]

31. Hillary's climate change proposals are garbage. Bernie’s aggressive approach is very different

Hillary's utterly inadequate response to climate change dooms our planet as surely as climate change deniers.

Our planet is in its 11th hour. We need aggressive global leadership now. That's Bernie.

Hillary’s pecking around the edges ensures environmental catastrophe.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Chained CPI, means testing, raising retirement age (Hillary) vs Raise the cap (Bernie)

to fix Social Security. That's not a split, it's a rift.

[YouDig]

37. She doesn't want any of those. And she wants to raise more money for SS, either by

raising the cap, or else including some other income as part of SS, either of which is taxing the wealthy more.

Look at her website on SS, I think you'd be surprised. She makes it very clear, no cuts of any kind including raising retirement age or changing cost-of-living adjustments.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

[Marr]

40. In the sense that most Hillary fans don't care about policy, yes.

They seem to care only about the advancement of their idol. I never see them talk policy here-- and they seem to flip around 180 degrees whenever supporting Hillary necessitates it.

There are some that do seem to feel very passionately about certain economic and foreign policies, and those I find indistinguishable from Republicans.

[tabasco]

42. What she says on her website and what she actually does

seem to be completely different things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. The promises on her website?

Let's hop in the wayback machine to 2008. Obama promised to save social security by raising the cap. Fast forward 7 years and 6 months later, and now he's mentioning it again. First time.

There are promises and there are "promises". And Clinton's record of honesty isn't nearly as good as that of the president.

The ideological split is between what Sanders promises (and would do), and what Clinton would actually do, despite her promises.

I'd suggest that people screenshot her website today, before the California primary, and compare it to what she actually does (if she actually wins election).

I'd suggest this, but there are no points awarded for being right. Cynicism is a carefully cultivated feature in american voters. Politicians like Clinton depend on it.

[seabeyond]

57. Sanders promises free healthcare and college. Of course, he will just get right on it, and all will

follow along. Right Jeff.

[JRLeft]

59. Yes there is you come from the right wing side of the party, the side that accuses the progressive

side of the party for wanting too much free stuff.

[philly_bob]

60. Clinton tends NeoCon. Much more prone to getting us into war for obscure geopolitical purposes. /nt

[TransitJohn]

62. If the policies are the same why all the talk of Bernie being "far left"

and loony, and not pragmatic, etc. from Hillary's campaign. That doesn't really square with what you posted, in my mind.

[rock]

63. Once again, I dig

yours is a reasonable take.

[reddread]

64. billionaires rights vs taxpayers burden

[Betty Karlson]

66. This is either a lie or a tin ear: she is distrusted because she always goes back on her words.

It's not the difference between two websites we are talking about. It's the difference between two types of policy-making and decision-taking. It's her record (trade deals, opposition to gay rights until 2013, starting wars, pushing fracking) against his (no to trade deals, pro gay rights since the 1980-ies if not before, no to every unnecessary military adventure, no to fracking).

This is not about websites. If you really belive that this is about a few hundred bites on the world wide web, it's you and not me who should stand accused of not doing homework and being easily duped. I pity you.

[YouDig]

69. I'll give you trade, there's a difference.

Gay marriage, no. Basically everyone, including Bernie, has come around on the issue. Which is a good thing. As of now, there's no difference between them on the issue.

Starting wars, no. Just one, Iraq, which she has apologized for as a mistake. Libya was already at war when NATO bombed, nothing like Iraq. And we did almost nothing in Syria.

Her fracking is a very small thing. Like she says, the amount she wants it regulated would mean very small amounts. And the point of Obama/Clinton being for fracking is to reduce climate emissions coming from coal. Which is a worthy goal. Some people disagree, but there are plenty of environmentally conscious people who agree. It wasn't some giveaway to big oil. Look at the her climate agenda, it's very aggressive, there's not much difference between the two on environment.

[Betty Karlson]

86. twist and spin. and if you believe Clinton did not oppose gay rights until 2013, you are a homophobe

yourself. She supported DOMA, Bernie did not. She supported DADT, Bernie did not. She said "Marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", Bernie did not. She praised Nancy Reagan's "silent activism" on HIV/ AIDS, Bernie knew better.

Wars are not just a mistake if she keeps repeating them while consulting with Blumenthal against Obama's express order not to do so. (Hence the private server, maybe?)

Fracking is a small thing? Flint might disagree.

[YouDig]

87. You're calling me a homophobe, and you think fracking caused the Flint crisis.

Just a big jumble of cluelessness is what you are. It makes sense that you would be Bernie or Bust.

[Betty Karlson]

88. Pretending that Clinton's pre-2013 record is pro-gay is indeed homophobe. And fracking was debated

in --- wait for it --- FLINT!

Which makes me a very well-informed Millennial with a good memory. Now who is the clueless one?

"Third Way or the Highway" is a failing proposition. Third Way is a dead end, and Clinton is taking the whole party en route to that big wall at the end. Crashing big mistake to let her. We had better go with Bernie.

[YouDig]

89. So you really think that Flint was caused by fracking. "Well-informed". Now THAT was funny.

And if you think Hillary is a homophobe, look at what she did as SoS. Obviously you are very poorly informed about many things.

[Betty Karlson]

90. I was referring to Clinton's answer in Flint and how is was received. (badly) Is spin all you have?

What she did as SOS:

"why does this form say parent 1 and parent 2? What happened to father and mther. I will not defend this change in congress, you hear me?"

homophobe indeed.

[YouDig]

91. SO because the debate was held in Flint, you think fracking had something to do with

Flint's water crisis? This keeps getting better.

And so you really don't know her advocacy for LGBT rights around the world as SoS. You really are that clueless. Amazing. I guess living in a bubble that happens.

[Betty Karlson]

92. The bubble is hers. Just because you keep spinning doesn't make it true.

[YouDig]

93. No, the bubble is you. Nobody thinks that Flint's water was contaminated by fracking. Only Berners

And not even many Berners. Even within the bubble, you're in a mini sub-bubble.

[Betty Karlson]

98. See reponse # 90.

Consider taking a spinning class instead of twisting my words: it annoys fewer people and you might look better too.

[YouDig]

100. It's embarrassing that you can be this wrong, and not even bother looking up simple facts.

[Betty Karlson]

101. and we're back to the "millennials are easily duped" smear. It's all Clinton offers us:

smears, lies, and belittling.

[YouDig]

102. I don't think many millenials are as clueless to think fracking caused Flint.

[Betty Karlson]

109. Which I don't. I was referring to the Flint debate, Clinton's answer, and the bad reception it had

Again: see response # 90, dear twister. It is fair to say that Clinton's beloved corporatism and financialisation caused Flint. Fracking is part of that wider problem. Which is probably why she was asked about Fracking while debating in Flint.

[YouDig]

113. Oho! So it's even dumber than I thought! It's not the city of Flint that has a problem with

fracking for any kind of factual reason, it's just a few clueless Berners in a debate audience didn't like Hillary's answer. Really great stuff you got.

The only thing dumber than that is how you are trying desperately to link Hillary to the Flint water crisis which was caused by the GOP governor.

[Betty Karlson]

117. "clueless" is all you have in response? Using pejorative language shows lack of argument.

And yeah: lacking an argument is really dumb. Read before you respond, and please consider that spinning class.

Corporatism, by the way, is bigger than Clinton. Both parties have dabbled in it. Both parties were wrong to do so.

[YouDig]

119. Also facts. Whereas you have: The Flint audience! Clinton caused the water crisis!

Here's another clue. The reason your candidate got trounced and will never be president isn't because the system is "rigged." It's because he didn't have the facts on his side. For example, the discussion we are having now.

[Betty Karlson]

128. Who said she caused it? I said her response about fracking was badly received.

You are so desperate to spin this, trying to make me look clueless. But you are only wading ever deaper into the mire of your own faulty arguments, or what passes for them.

[YouDig]

132. You did. Forgotting things already? You blamed in on "Clinton's beloved corporatism".

In reality, it was caused by the GOP governor, but reality is no fun is it? Reality is also where Hillary is going to be the nominee.

[Betty Karlson]

137. Corporatism includes both Clinton and the governor.

Failed again.

[YouDig]

143. The governor is the one who actually appointed the city manager who switched the

water supply. And that's what caused the water crisis, not "corporatism". Trying to drag Clinton into this is like blaming "Bernie's socialism" for Stalin's Ukraine famine.

And this is why your side is losing. Nobody outside the bubble believes any of your silly arguments.

[seabeyond]

94. Sanders didn't support marriage equality until 2009. Both, always supported gay rights.

[Betty Karlson]

96. Clinton certainly didn't: "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman"

is a whole less supportive than "marriage equality now is not feasable."

Clinton supported DOMA and DADT. Sanders opposed those vile pieces of homophobia that Clinton signed into law (Bill, that is, his wife 'only' supported his efforts)

[seabeyond]

97. Clinton doesn't pretend, or lie, that she always supported marriage equality. Sanders does.

[Betty Karlson]

99. Clinton pretends that she always was an ally - that is much worse.

[seabeyond]

103. Clinton has always been a gay right advocate. Always. Hence, her huge support from this community.

[Betty Karlson]

111. No, she was in favour of discrimination. She was an opponent of equal rights.

The only part of the community that are overwhelmingly in favour of Clinton are the rich, the establishment, and the easily duped, since they fall for tokenism.

[seabeyond]

114. Clinton has always been on the side of gay rights, along with Sanders. Now, Clinton was more the

activist for gay rights, and Sanders merely supported gays. But, they were both for gay rights.

That would be an honest conversation about the two positions.

[Betty Karlson]

120. Someone who praises Nancy Reagan's "silent activism"

has a really distorted view of what actvism means. Add that up to support for DOMA, DADT, opposition to marriage equality, opposition to forms with "parent 1 and parent 2" and the picture forms of someone whom even Bill Clinton admitted: "Hillary just has a problem with gay people."

[seabeyond]

126. She and Sanders and Kerry and Obama opposed marriage equality. All were pro gay rights.

Nancy Reagan, in the years at the end of the Presidency, did nudge Reagan. Doesn't give any quarter to Reagan's bigotry, but Nancy Reagan did work to getting her husband to bend.

Facts matter, and it is really offensive that your ignore Sanders bullshit lying claims to play this game.

[Betty Karlson]

133. And now you are trying to defend that horrible woman Reagan too. That is disgusting!

And yes: it is homophobic too. Not homophobic of the throw-your-16-year-old-gay-son-out-of-the-house kind, but homophobic of the silent assent kind.

[seabeyond]

138. No, I am not. What is nasty, is to pretend that what Sanders did is glorified in lie, and everyone

else is simply evil.

[seabeyond]

105. Yet, you totally dismiss Sanders lie that he has always been for marriage equality. Cute, that.

[YouDig]

108. Yeah, right? Everyone changed their mind about gay marriage, but someone only Clinton gets heat.

[seabeyond]

112. Sanders flat out lied claiming he was always for it, going back to an article in 70's even though in

2001 and 2006 he clearly did not support marriage equality.

Flat out lied during this campaign.

But ya, Clinton is the bad guy.

[Betty Karlson]

124. Sanders never praised Nancy Reagan's "silent activism".

Sanders never suppported DOMA

Never supported DADT

Never held that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman"

Sanders I trust. Clinton I trust to do the right thing after she has exhausted all other options. We can't afford to wait that long with every decision a president has to make.

[seabeyond]

145. Sanders opposed marriage equality until 2009.

[Scuba]

67. "Go to Hillary's website and see what she stands for."

That's adorable!

[bkkyosemite]

76. She flipped on so many stances when Bernie started getting popular...they are very different!

[YouDig]

77. On some. But isn't that what you want? Compromise on issues?

[larkrake]

80. Historically, she gives lip service and compromise isnt the end result

[hollowdweller]

79. I support Bernie but I think her ideas on her website are good.

I think with Clinton, due to some of her past votes and also some of the stuff with the big financial guys there's just not much trust.

If Clinton can convince democrats and the country she really will help them and really does enact some of her ideas she will be re elected with huge margins. I just hope we can get her the numbers in the house and senate to get some of it passed.

[larkrake]

81. Sorry, I am highly suspicious of you and your post. are you a Brock bot? Just asking

[angrychair]

84. Not even close to the same

She has a policy of compromising. Not in a way that helps people like me. It's to help people like her. Rich people.
Examples are:
the "compromise" of $12/hr and not $15/hr...the poor stay poor and the rich get richer.

"Compromise" on campaign finance: On Citizens United and campaign finance reform, she has 20+ SuperPACs and knowingly has a dark money SuperPAC and setup a PAC with the express purpose to take advantage of loopholes in the laws to coordinate between her campaign and her other SuperPACs but also says she is against Citizens United. Also says she will do away with them but "needs" them right now. Again, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

It's easy to "compromise" when you are not the one being compromised.

[seabeyond]

95. Sanders has his superpacs also. Because he has less, because of less support and popularity,

does that make him a better representative of Citizens, or more a hypocrite because he pretends he is not a politician with superpacs.

[angrychair]

139. No, he has no affiliated SuperPACs

Unaffiliated super PACs are different. The two pro-Sanders super PACs -- Collective Actions PAC and Billionaires for Bernie -- have no ties to Sanders or his campaign.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-only-presidential-candidates-withou/

So, yes, there’s a super PAC backing Bernie Sanders candidacy, but Sanders is absolutely right when he says his campaign doesn’t have a super PAC. The million-dollar checks and rampant coordination between the other campaigns and their super PACs is nothing short of scandalous, and while it may be a scandal that’s not widely known outside the Beltway, political journalists who suggest that Sanders is a hypocrite understand perfectly well why that claim is false.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/debunking-the-big-bernie-sanders-has-a-superpac-lie/

I find it interesting that is where you decided to take a stand. Instead of trying to clarify where I might have misunderstood your candidate's position on the issues, you instead lash out to get a jab at Sanders.
I did not. I made an assertion, said why. I did not attack her only stated her positions and the design of her campaign. My only fault was not adding sources.

I am now asserting your position is wrong and supporting it with viable sources. That is how you defend your candidate.

[seabeyond]

144. Superpacs are not tied to campaigns. Sanders is no different. False accusation like his claim

the election is stolen is all Sanders is doing. He is being dishonest for a con, presenting himself as different, when he is no different than the others, and his supporters allow him to get away with it.

He does the same and then claims he is special, different, really.... not like the rest of the politicians when all he is, is an establishment politician with the rest.

[angrychair]

153. I gave you two links

I humble suggest you read them.
Why I would and never have, suggest that Sanders is the perfect candidate, he is far and away closer to the issues that matter and I truly hope others take up that mantle to make this about the poor and middle-class and not about the status quo.

It is easy to talk of compromise when you are not the one being compromised.

[MillennialDem]

104. Bull. It's ideological. There are differences (you'd expect this though). And even the

ideological things that are the same you expect Bernie to push harder for. You might agree that Hillary would be better at getting compromises though.

But to think it's personal is a crock. Bernie Sanders doesn't want a cabinet position or to be VP. Hell I don't think he even wants to be president, he just wants his positions enacted.

[seabeyond]

116. So fuckin true and indicative of his life. He doesn't want to do any of the work, just everyone do

what he tells them to do. Father does know best.

He doesn't actually do any legislation, but he signs his name in support of those that have done the work.

Not a big follow thru guy.

Doesn't do the homework or put together something viable, but will give a general, over all statement how he thinks it should all work, then every one else can do his bidding. Oh.... with no question or challenges. Because he knows best.

You are absolutely fuckin' right. You pegged it.

[MillennialDem]

122. Except his positions are what the majority of America wants... you know when you factor in the 40-50

% of the population who doesn't even bother voting (because they know the deck is stacked), but even disregarding them he's still the strongest general election candidate, especially among the younger generation(s).

Someone like Bernie (a social democrat) will be elected in the next 20 years. Read it now and quote me later.

[seabeyond]

130. You really did not address what I posted, about no interest in doing the work. Maybe, if he was

interested in actually doing the work, we would be further along. Not being willing ot do the work though, leaves Clinton with the best progressive policies, hence, her overwhelming support in actual votes.

[MillennialDem]

131. If he wasn't interested in doing the work, he would have pushed Warren to run.

[seabeyond]

136. You, yourself he was not interested in position that would require work done, simply wanted people

to do it.

[MillennialDem]

142. I meant he wasn't interested in the glory / prestige of the position. Bernie would rather

one (more) of his major three positions - universal health care, universal college, and getting money out of politics be enacted than to get his name put in the history books as the 45th POTUS.

Hillary and everyone (almost?) who came before her would rather have her name in the history books.

Most people are corrupted by power. It's just human nature. Somehow Bernie is not. There are other people who aren't as well, but they are a rare breed.

[seabeyond]

146. He doesn't do the work. That makes him a mediocre congressman and a failed presidential candidate.

[handmade34]

106. the Republicans

have been far too successful...

[cherokeeprogressive]

118. You can reduce Hillary Clinton to someone who cheated on a crossword puzzle 45 years ago...

I hope you stretched before contorting yourself like that. I'd hate to see you pull a muscle.

Like I said before, somehow you keep getting the shittiest daily assignments of the bunch. You should lobby for some stronger sauce, like Burlington College or honeymooning in Russia... that's the real shit right there.

[aikoaiko]

121. Yahn Ndgo: "We don't trust what she says and we don't like what she has done."

To support HRC (and not merely vote against Trump) is to have to forgive her and hope that won't fuck up again.

[Live and Learn]

123. The ideological split is obvious even on DU. You and I have very little in common. nt

[YouDig]

125. We don't have a lot in common when it comes to email conspiracy theories.

On issues, I think we do. And much more than Trump, which is what matters.

[Live and Learn]

127. Nope. I have seen your posts on the issues. We have nothing at all in common. nt

[casperthegm]

140. Wrong as wrong can be

It's amazing to me how Clinton supporters think there's little difference between the two candidates. First, if that was true and you see them as almost identical, why would you choose the one that is under an FBI investigates?

Second, riddle me this; How are they the same on the following; Clinton supports fracking, Clinton voted for the Iraq War, Clinton has super pacs (essentially she'll take the money now but promises to shut it down after elected- yeah, ok Hillary), Clinton gave speeches to Wall Street for millions and then refused to disclose the transcripts (a hint at the transparency we could expect if she's president), Clinton supported NAFTA and TPP, sending our jobs overseas, Clinton Opposes Glass Steagall, Clinton opposes healthcare for all, and Clinton opposes free college for all. But hey, those are just minor things, like a crossword puzzle, right?

[seabeyond]

152. Sanders has Super Pacs, gets money from fracking, supported all military and budgetary votes except

one, refuses to provide his taxes, on the only trade voted, voted against CAFTA, has a policy that actually addresses the 2007 economic bust, unlike Sanders position with Glass/Steagall, believes healthcare should be paid by the rich, while helping the poor and disadvantaged so we all are not carrying the burden of free healthcare to the rich, and proposes that the rich pay for their college making college accessible to the poor and disadvantaged being more progressive than Sanders so once again, we are all not carrying the burden for the rich to have free college.

But hey... I guess it matters just how progressive we are in understanding an unlevel playing field and not a lazy fix that will burden all of us.

[casperthegm]

158. You should be a politician

Because you have the double talk down to a science. Come on- Bernie has super pacs? I heard a while back that someone had, or wanted to, form one but the point is that he does not support super pacs and doesn't want them. Judging by your post, you're not stupid and you are fully aware of the truth. What bothers me is that you try to blur the truth. No wonder you find Hillary so appealing.

I already addressed the votes regarding the Iraq war. That one vote that Sanders didn't support? Getting into the war to begin with, because he feared that it would destabilize the region and give rise to terror groups when the power vacuum was created. You know, groups like ISIS? And yet Hillary wants to take credit for her vast experience in foreign policy? What good is experience if you keep making poor decisions?

Yes, I agree Bernie should release more of his taxes. Transparency is a good thing. See how this works? Admitting when there is something that your candidate falls short on?

Give me a break with the fracking. Bernie is completely against it. And he was against the Keystone pipeline from the start. He didn't waver on it until the last minute, like Hillary. Bad for the environment is bad for the environment.

Your post about making the rich pay for things wasn't all that clear, but if you're implying that the poor and middle class would have an unfair share of the burden for paying for healthcare for all or free college, then your "facts" are wrong or you don't understand. The burden should, and would be shifted to the wealthiest Americans.

So yeah, no exactly identical candidates. Not by a long shot. And you know it, no matter how you try to spin it.

[seabeyond]

161. It is Sanders blurring the turth as he campaigns on integrity. Pisses me off. He is a politician and

if he was not running a con, pretending otherwise, actually holding onto integrity, I would not be saying any of this. Yes, a couple of his Super Pacs have spent a lot of money. Those of us following know and see. Does he oppose? Sure. As does all the Democrats who have been on this issue a lot longer than Sanders having spoken up. He does not get to own the issue that is a Democratic issue, that we have been discussing for years. He is no different, he just pretends otherwise, unlike the other candidates that get, until the rules are changed, we need money.

He also was safe from being voted out in 2002, late October, right before November election. He also voted for the first door being opened, earlier, giving the initial power to Bush. He also voted for a slower withdrawal and not pulling from gitmo and other military votes. He is not a dove. He was on a news show and declared he too would continue drone strikes. No, not a lot of difference and I am not gonna pretend otherwise. He has not voted against one military action, but the safe position of Iraq vote.

I have no issue admitting where Clinton falls short. I did not start as a Clinton supporter and supported Obama in 2008. I do challenge lies or exaggerations. I adamantly oppose Clinton presenting transcripts because no one has ever had that demand made of them, looking for a gotcha. I am pretty confident Clinton has nothing in them, and still I wouldn't do it. Who the hell is Sanders to demand she provide transcripts? Not our business. Just more of a man demanding of Clinton what no other man has demanded of them. Wrong. Out of principle, no. Clinton does this, giving into demand, and just another outrageous demand will be made. No.

Clinton didn't waver on the pipeline, but this is more of the dishonest bullshit game Sanders plays. She is not reactionary. She did not speak out about keystone until she was ready, not because Sanders demand she give him the answer, before she was ready to give it to him. Because she did not accommodate Sanders, he then tainted her with a non truth in dishonesty. You know, that campaign of integrity again. Accuse her of something that did not happen.

As far as the rest of us not carrying the burden of free, I think that is so bogus and naive. Sanders, well above me in pay scale is paying way under me in tax percentage. You are really telling me the rich will pay and it will not burden me in my taxes? Bullshit and unrealistic. He is talking taxing all transactions in my meager retirement funds for every transaction. More money out of my pocket. He says that we will only pay about 5k more thru taxes for healthcare. Firstly, all experts put it at about 10k and ACA accommodates those with least amount of money, and it would be an increase for them.

Clinton kicks ass to Sanders, so we will agree on that. She does the homework, not just read a head line and react. She has facts before speaking, rather than being pissed and throwing out false accusations. I can go on.

[casperthegm]

163. You and I clearly disagree and normally I'd leave it at that

But I feel inclined to set a couple of things straight first.

Super pacs. Let's cut the crap. Sanders opposes them. Is this a Democrat issue? Sorry, it is not. The party has lost itself, embracing corporate America and all of the money they send their way. Democrats can cry about Citizens United all they want and yet they are more than happy to make use of it when they need it. Hillary says it's legalized bribery, yet she takes it now, with the promise that she'll end it once she's elected? Oh, it's legalized bribery for everyone else but her, because she's above all of that, right? If you can't smell BS when it's put right up to your nose then there is nothing I can do to help you.

The war and it's funding. Already addressed. Didn't mention her amazing idea to challenge Russia with a no fly zone in Syria. Pure stroke of genius there. What could go wrong? More of that "experience" being put to use.

Who is Sanders to demand the transcripts? It's not just Sanders asking for them. He's one person. The media wants to see them and so do millions of others from the Democratic party, and millions of other independent voters (who the party should be trying to court rather than alienate). Here's the deal- Clinton has trust issues, right? Right or wrong, that is the public perception. Personally, I find that she created that problem herself, and the transcripts are a shining example of that. No, I don't trust that what she said is benign. Is it a no win situation for her? Probably. But who put her in that situation to begin with? She did. Another poor decision, topped by another example of a lack of transparency.

The heck she didn't waver on the pipeline. She waited until the week that Obama made his decision before she made her own decision. That is reactionary. That's the freaking definition of reactionary. The pipeline was wrong from the start. Anyone who cares about the environment knows that.

Ah, now we get to the naive and free talking point for college and healthcare for all. Here's the thing. You can find a number of articles that support your view that Sanders will tax you to death and the costs are not what he promised. You know what else you can find? An equal number of articles that refute your claim. I can post links here. So can you. And we'd go round and round. One thing I do know is that if we can fund Hillary's wars that cost trillions of dollar, kills thousands of brave soldiers, and destabilizes the Middle East, I'm pretty sure we can work to find a way to provide healthcare to everyone in this country and provide free college as well, passing the vast majority of those costs to the wealthy. Waving it off as impractical and naive is something I'd expect from the GOP, not from a true democrat who should be looking out for the welfare of everyone in this country.

[seabeyond]

164. Yes, in your post, Clinton opposes Super Pacs, and get the advantage of them now, just like Sanders!

Sanders started the demand of Transcripts, he owns it. My point stands.

Clinton did not waiver on Keystone, that is Sanders smear. She respectfully to Obama, professionally waited until she felt it appropriate to share, not to undercut him. That would be respect for the President of the United States and her former boss, and friend.

Articles stating Sanders is right on our tax rate is very very few, whereas those calling him out are many. Shifting to another subject with military cost, which Sanders is right there too, per his votes.

[Vote2016]

147. With regard to the urgency of our need for change, Trump is closer to Sanders than Hillary. I'm

"never Trump" but millions of voters will rank the candidates in this order:

1st - Sanders for progressive hopeful change
2nd - Trump for ill-defined fearful change but at least some change
3td - Hillary for no change; get used to the new normal

[YouDig]

149. Can you post that in this thread for illustration purposes?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512114157

[Vote2016]

150. Which word is outside of your vocabulary: "never" or "Trump"?

[YouDig]

151. You even used the words "at least." It's like I pre-quoted you!

[Vote2016]

155. Like I said using words "never Trump" but if you doubt that millions of voters want change and see

Hillary as the opponent of change, stock up on antidepressants now because you're gonna need em in November

[YouDig]

156. And then you went looking for silver linings. Just exactly like I said.

[Vote2016]

159. I'm impressed that you are multilingual. What's your primary language? Your English is ok but you

don't seem to grasp the vocabulary yet.

The words "never" and "Trump" and "silver" and "lining" all have specific meanings in English. The use of the words "never" and "Trump" means something and the absence of words like "silver" and "lining" also has meaning in English.

[YouDig]

160. The rest of your post. It was more than two words, you know? "at least"

[Armstead]

148. I totally disagree with you, biut I gotta admit you're doing well at defending her positions

When you actually argue on substance you do much better than when you just shoot out cheap shots.

(Reminds me of someone else here)

[Beowulf]

157. Generally, I ignore your posts

Unfortunately I opened this one. This goes to a level of simpleminded stupidity rarely approached. Or, given the high likelihood you are a Brock troll, you are just disingenuous

[reddread]

162. war and peace.

hope that helps.

[mmonk]

165. It is completely ideological.