Bernie Sanders Gives 6 HUGE REASONS To Pick Him Over Hillary

[Segami]

"....Bernie Sanders is a simple guy and always has been. Instead, of eating his meals in the formal Senate dining room, he chooses to hang out in the basement cafeteria and discuss politics with lower-level interns. That really says a lot about him. He enjoys talking to and meeting new people and doesn’t have an ego, unlike so many other people in power..."

Bernie Sanders is gaining some tremendous momentum with his poll numbers, and picking up a lot of ground on Hillary Clinton. A new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll has the Senator only seven points behind Hillary Clinton leading up to the Iowa caucus, and there’s still a lot of time left to pick up more ground. Support has practically been dropping for Clinton like flies. In the last eight months, Hillary has lost nearly 20% of her support. People are starting to realize that not only is there not just one default candidate, but there are some major stark differences between the two leading Democratic candidates running for President.

Bernie Sanders is doing his best to identify those differences. He spoke to CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday and listed six that everyone needs to be aware of:

1. “I believe that, when you have so few banks with so much power, you have to not only reestablish Glass-Steagall, but you have got to break them up. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

2. “I believe that our trade policies, NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, have been a disaster. I am helping to lead the effort against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

3. “We have to be aggressive in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, and defeat the Keystone pipeline. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

4. “I believe that, as opposed to my Republican colleagues who want to cut Social Security, I believe we should expand Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income. That’s not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

5. “I believe that we have got to raise the minimum wage over a period of several years to $15 an hour – not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

6. “I voted against the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for it.”

Bernie Sanders is not your big establishment candidate. He doesn’t hang out with the “rich crowd.” In fact, he is one of the least wealthy candidates running for office. According to his latest tax filings, he has an average net worth of $330,507 as compared to that of Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband, earned $30 million over the last 16 months alone.



cont'

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/30/bernie-sanders-gives-6-huge-reasons-to-pick-him-over-hillary-video/

[L0oniX]

1. Feel the heat of the Bern!

[Scootaloo]

2. Not good enough, Bernie!

You can't expect to skate by on "issues" and "positions".

No, all that matters is personality politics.

[HappyPlace]

7. I worry that he'll lose the War of Twittering. His Tweet Foo is not strong.

I'm VERY CONCERNED!

[arcane1]

23. But he isn't bulk-buying fake followers

So there's that

[HappyPlace]

24. Well then how can he defend us from ISIS???

AND!

He can't even pull together a slick fundraiser in the Hamptons with Bentleys and Porsches and skinny white valets?

I mean REALLY!

[beam me up scottie]

119. !

[Enthusiast]

76. Hair! Don't forget the hair!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Metric System]

3. Still with Hill.

[artislife]

5. Because of where she stands on these issues?

This is actually not snark, but a real inquiry.

Why shouldn't we re-install Glass-Stengle for example?

[rhett o rick]

43. Clinton said no to reestablishing Glass-Steagall because she isn't sure it would correct the problem

She didn't offer an alternative. Her husband thinks dumping Glass-Steagall was a mistake. Kinda like H. Clinton thinks helping her friend George Bush invade Iraq was a mistake. These are not minor "mistakes".

[cascadiance]

59. And Hillary admits a private email server "Clearly Wasn't the Best Choice"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-email-server-clearly-wasnt-the-best-choice_55de4adae4b0e7117ba8cf56

And she also tries to rationalize her previously strong stances supporting H-1B Visa expansion in 2007 for the 2008 election as noted here:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2909983/it-outsourcing/heres-where-clinton-and-rubio-stand-on-the-h-1b-visa-issue.html

...
But Clinton has a lot of history. As secretary of state in Obama's first term, she took a more nuanced stance.

The Indian government sees easy access to H-1B visas as essential to its IT services industry. But in 2009, in the midst of a recession, the Obama administration was cautious about anything suggesting support for offshore outsourcing.

"In a global recession, every country is going to want to make sure that we have enough jobs for our people," said Clinton at a news conference six years ago in India. "So, we have to figure out how we're going to work together. Outsourcing is a concern for many communities and businesses in my country. So how we handle that is something that, you know, we are very focused on doing in a way that doesn't disrupt the great flow of trade and services that go between our countries."

Clinton's diplomatically worded answer threaded through any commitments.
...

She keeps trying to explain her choices of the past or avoids talking about these issues completely and we're not really hearing good reasons for why she made them when she did and why we can trust where she is now in retrospect with them...

[rhett o rick]

98. I want to point out that the exerpt you posted is such a great example of Clinton speak.

Let's see what she said.

"In a global recession, every country is going to want to make sure that we have enough jobs for our people," True but no point.

"So, we have to figure out how we're going to work together." She is saying here "we have to figure out ......" Yes, that's obvious but so what? No commitment.

"Outsourcing is a concern for many communities and businesses in my country. So how we handle that is something that, you know, we are very focused on doing in a way that doesn't disrupt the great flow of trade and services that go between our countries." Lots of words. "Outsourcing is a concern" But of course. Again, no point. Stating the obvious again. Then she says we must be very focused on yada, yada, yada. Again, pure rhetoric.

The following are rhetoric code phrases:
We must be focused. We are concerned. We have to make sure. Something, something, is a concern. We all need jobs for our people.

[Utopian Leftist]

105. I have noticed this with every speech she makes,

she avoids policy and issue, preferring bland generalizations that no one could possibly disagree with, but which are entirely lacking in substance.

It's no wonder that her official stated policy on more than one topic is, "ask me when I am President."

People with something to hide? Usually turn out to be liars and/or thieves. Just sayin'....

[rhett o rick]

107. When asked about about college loans she said something like, "no student should go into

debt to go to college." Yea! wait, so? She is a master of rhetoric. How about "no one should be poor"

[cascadiance]

114. And notice how she says "college" which could be a way of not saying "university"...

... which Bernie's plans provides means for everyone to attend, but hers doesn't, being focused on community colleges.

[Dawgs]

6. With an argument like that, how can anyone not be with her?

[Metric System]

8. I'm not here to change minds.

[R. P. McMurphy]

13. Looks like you're succeeding. eom

[Le Taz Hot]

14. LOL!

Very good!

[Metric System]

16. OK?

[Dawgs]

33. I didn't say you were. n/t

[thesquanderer]

27. Because not everyone votes on the issues.

This is not a knock on Hillary supporters. There are reasons to prefer Hillary... a common one is that they think she will be better at getting things done. It is kind of like saying it is better to get a burger from someone promising you a burger, than to get nothing at all from someone who promised you filet mignon... and that's not an unreasonable position. People have put forth other reasons, like perceptions of electability in November, or feeling she has a more accomplished record. And in some cases, they may feel Hillary is stronger on particular issues that matter to them... arguably gun control and women's issues. (Not that Bernie isn't great on women's issues, but Hillary has been a particular advocate for this worldwide... and is, after all, a woman.)

But overall, I think most of us on DU would generally prefer Bernie to Hillary strictly on the issues. It doesn't mean he necessarily automatically gets all of their votes, though.

[Z_California]

36. Excellent and unbiased analysis

Most people I know of who back HRC do so for "electability" reasons - they don't want to take a chance of losing to any GOP candidate and are afraid that Bernie's "socialist" label will sink him in a general election.

Personally, I think Bernie is equally if not more electable once people get to know him. He landslides in Vermont every election and gets a lot of support from conservatives who appreciate his authenticity. The proof is in the pudding if you look at poll trends where he has campaigned - as people get to know him, they tend to support him.

HRC's negatives are starting to become more worrisome now - so the electability issue may start to even out a bit.

[AlbertCat]

137. HRC do so for "electability" reasons

Well, she did lose that last primary.

"I think Bernie is equally if not more electable once people get to know him."

INDEED!

[Stardust]

117. I'm dealing with that same argument with a close friend of mine. He loves Bernie's ideas but

thinks Hillary would have a better chance of succeeding with Congress. And I have to admit he might have a point. Truth be known, it's going to be hell for any Dem who has to work with those wackadoodles. I'm a Bernie supporter and will continue to be until it's no longer an option. Call me naive, but this might be my last chance to vote for someone with his integrity.

[thesquanderer]

129. I agree, no Dem pres can likely implement much of a progressive agenda

with the 2016 congress. I look at it more as playing the long game... it may take a while to get there, but we will *never* get there if we don't start taking steps toward moving the ball in the right direction.

[Stardust]

136. You are so right. Reminds me of an ESPN story about a high school football coach who is bucking

conventional wisdom by never punting on 4th down. And his strategy is working. We Dems can't punt either, just keep moving that ball.

[LondonReign2]

12. Curious, do you stand with her on those issues?

[Metric System]

15. I don't require purity from my candidates. It's easy to have a record like Sanders when you

represent a homogeneous state, have fewer constituents to answer to and have no ties to a political party. He has never had to compromise and work with others, since he has never been in a leadership role.

[LondonReign2]

17. I don't require purity from a candidate either. That wasn't the question though

Do you stand with her on those issues? If so, which of those appeal to you.

[Metric System]

19. How does he plan to make all these changes? They're just words. Again, he has never been in a

leadership position where he had to work with others, compromise and get things done. It's easy to make promises, but difficult to deliver.

[arcane1]

25. Seems more anti-Sanders than pro-Clinton

She'll face the same congress, after all.

[Dawgs]

34. How are Hillary's plans not "just words"?

And she hasn't exactly have a lifelong career of being in leadership positions herself.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. He HAS been in a leadership position so their goes THAT talking point.

[LondonReign2]

48. You don't appear to want to say if you agree with Hillary's stance on these six issues

Again, which of these positions do you agree with Hillary on?

1. “I believe that, when you have so few banks with so much power, you have to not only reestablish Glass-Steagall, but you have got to break them up. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

2. “I believe that our trade policies, NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, have been a disaster. I am helping to lead the effort against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

3. “We have to be aggressive in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, and defeat the Keystone pipeline. That is not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

4. “I believe that, as opposed to my Republican colleagues who want to cut Social Security, I believe we should expand Social Security by lifting the cap on taxable income. That’s not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

5. “I believe that we have got to raise the minimum wage over a period of several years to $15 an hour – not Hillary Clinton’s position.”

6. “I voted against the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton voted for it.”

If you can't even agree with your candidate's positions, why are you supporting her?

[peacebird]

102. *crickets*

I noticed the poster deftly avoided answering in the posts above.....

[hueymahl]

135. Maybe that is why he likes HRC so much

They have the same rhetorical style.

[BeanMusical]

108. +1

[LondonReign2]

83. Amazing. You can't say you support even a single one of Hillary's positions

out of these six items.

[A Simple Game]

87. You do know he has been a mayor, a Representative, and a Senator don't you?

How can you say he has never had a leadership position and had to work with others and compromise?

You are the second Hillary supporter that I have noticed making up stuff along this line, is it something you receive in an email with talking points of the day?

[Metric System]

91. I'll admit I goofed on his background. That being said, it drives me INSANE when I see posts like

this saying that Hillary supporters on DU receive talking points or are part of her campaign. We're already outnumbered on DU and feel like black sheep, so suggesting we're campaign plants adds insult to injury.

[A Simple Game]

97. I never implied you were a campaign plant, but it is common practice for campaigns to send

out talking points. Republicans are especially noted for it but Democratic candidates do it too. You must have gotten the ideas from somewhere.

Support whoever you want to support but be honest about it, especially to yourself. Ask yourself if you are really supporting the person who would do the best job, after all that is what the primaries are, a weeding process.

[pangaia]

106. Yor still have not answered the question?

Which of Clinton's positions do you support, and which do you not support?

[grahamhgreen]

90. OMG. He audited the Fed for the first time ever.

[Fearless]

18. It seems that you do though

You require your candidate, regardless of positions, to be physically Hillary Clinton.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Okay,...THAT gave me a chuckle over my morning coffee.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Compromise like this I can live without:

[tecelote]

39. Citizens United ruined Hillary

If Hillary was not beholden to her corporate sponsors, she'd be a much better option.

Instead, she's polling to see what to say so she can win and then it's back to the corporate masters.

Her heart is in the right place, her loyalty is the problem.

[Uncle Joe]

64. This video is definitely worth watching just to the get a small taste

of how money is corrupting government.

[Marty McGraw]

30. "He has never had to compromise and work with others, since he has never been in a leadership role."

[sibelian]

70. Oh, there's no point trying to understand it...

They've joined up all their anti-Sanders rhetoric and believe it forms something coherent.

[Marty McGraw]

138. doesn't that just smell

of exactly the way TeaBaggers learned to behave...?

[sibelian]

141. Yes, it smells EXACTLY like that

thanks for pointing that out and sorry to take so long to get back to you!

[Bubzer]

42. How peculiar. You say you don't require purity, but then complain when he doesn't meet your metric.

Maybe I'm just picking on your choice of wording, but being overly particular about how a candidate got to where they're, at seems a bit like a purity test.

I'm not quite sure what you consider a leadership roll. I know Bernie is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs... served 8 years as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont... and another 6 as Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and currently is a United States Senator. I cannot imagine nearly anyone during that timeframe being able to hold any of those positions, as an independent, without having a fair amount of leadership ability.

[JDPriestly]

46. Forrgive me for paraphrasing your statement in post #15.

"It's easy to have a record like Sanders" if you have a brilliant mind and can enjoy the luxury of thinking independently BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACCEPT HUGE DONATIONS FROM BILLIONAIRE DONORS.

It's also easy to have a record like Sanders if your lifestyle is not lavish and is close to that of the average person and therefore you don't have to make $200,000 speeches to the very banksters that are pinching pennies out of the pension funds of the people you claim you want to represent.

[sibelian]

71. Aaaah, "his work isn't really his..."

That's a new one, thanks for adding it to my list.

[grahamhgreen]

89. We elect representatives, not leaders.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

60. A vote for Hill is a vote for the same old thing with ...

a pretty little bow to make you happy.

Be happy

[sabrina 1]

144. That's fine. But you know what I wish? I wish Hillary's supporters would talk

about the issues and why they support her ON THE ISSUES. People all over are noticing that her supporters do not talk about issues.

I have no problem with people supporting whoever they want to support. But I'm puzzled by Dems eg, who support a candidate who says, eg, re the Keystone Pipeline eg, 'I will let you know where I stand AFTER I am elected'. Seriously? I would love it if one of her supporters would explain why that is acceptable.

But we see a lot of attacking of Bernie and his supporters, not that anyone pays it much attention, but very litttle to try to get people to support her.

This is primary season, this is when you advocate for your candidate. But I don't see much advocating for Hillary. I see either defensiveness or attacking of other candidates.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but this is now being noticed, not just here but all over Social Media.

[tularetom]

4. But it's "Her Turn©"!!!

Why is this man trying to confuse us with the truth? Doesn't he realize that the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2016 was decided the day after the presidential election of 2008?

[hifiguy]

52. That's it in a nutshell.

[stillwaiting]

9. There are major differences between them on many of the big issues I care about.

Bernie is MUCH better.

[roguevalley]

67. given in Greatest threads tht there is a thread about how billionaires

are funding BOTH Clinton and Bush because they don't see daylight between them or were privately assured not to worry, that is enough for me.

[tecelote]

10. Bernie is running on his own beliefs.

Not on the issues he's paid to support.

[Fearless]

20. And that's the big difference.

Who knows where her money even comes from with bond donations and whatnot. We know exactly where Bernie's comes from.

[tecelote]

122. Exactly.

Hillary is owned by the corporations. She'll poll to know what to say to get elected then she'll forget it all and bow down to the corporate interests that own all of our current politicians.

Bernie runs on his own beliefs. No polls needed. He is supported by us and owned by no one. He'll lead from the heart.

[WillyT]

11. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[raindaddy]

22. Republicans would oppose all five of Bernie's positions...

Frankly it's hard to believe the Democratic party has shifted so close to the Republican point of view that we actually have a candidate running for President that's just fine with "too big to fail" Wall Street banks so powerful they could take down the economy if they failed. Especially after they put a gun to the public's head less than a decade ago....

Makes me think either a lot of Republicans have moved to the Democratic party or a lot of Democrats have forgotten what their party stands for.

[Cheese Sandwich]

26. Those are good reasons

[AtomicKitten]

28. Succinct, fair, and powerful differentiation between the candidates. <nt>

[SoapBox]

41. ^^^This!^^^

Damn those inconvenient facts!

[brooklynite]

29. One HUGE Reason to pick Hillary over him...

If Sanders doesn't wind the General Election, all of those policy points will be worthless.

Sanders will be massively outspent by the Republicans. More to the point, Sanders will likely accept public funding, which will put a fixed limit on what he can spend. I have yet to hear how Sanders can build an equivalent political effort solely with volunteers, and keep them organized and on message.

[BooScout]

31. He'll do it with Pixie Dust.....

[img][/img]

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. This is SOOOO "2008".

[kenfrequed]

96. Yeah except

Hillary's negatives are higher in the swing state.

She activates the republican base just by being on the ticket.

She dampens the Democratic base at the same time.

The republicans have been preparing their campaigns against her for at least a decade.

She will have trouble running against big money and income inequality considering where she has recieved her campaign contributions without looking entirely hypocritical.


The only thing she has going for her is the clown car of republican loons. Wait... every Democratic candidate has that going for them.

So yeah... pixie dust. Why make actual arguments when you can simply make dismissive noises and cast aspersions. Is accusing Sander's supporters of "wanting a pony" on schedule for this week or next week? I am working on some really fun graphic memes to post in retort and I want to make sure they are ready.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Hope you blew the dust off that old-ass script before you started reading the lines again.

[Marty McGraw]

32. "I have yet to hear how Sanders can build

an equivalent political effort solely with volunteers, and keep them organized and on message"

and yet it is happening
Right as we speak

[brooklynite]

35. No, it is not...

...he is showing strength in the first two States that vote. Not the rest of the Country. Add to which, attracting large crowds does not always translate to votes (see: Howard Dean).

[Ino]

37. If Hillary doesn't win the General Election, all her money will be worthless.

Money is not a HUGE reason to pick Hillary... it's a PATHETIC reason. It's sad that money is all she has going for her.

IMO, she will LOSE the General Election, with or without her billions.

[LondonReign2]

50. ^This

[brooklynite]

54. ...and yet, she's competitive or ahead of every likely Republican.

...and she'll have the resources to fight it out.

[Ino]

72. There's that "she has the money" again...

If that's all that matters, then Trump will win.

All her money-grubbing didn't help her win in 2008, did it? She squandered it all away in a shock & awe display,* had to kick in millions of her own, and still ended up broke with Obama asking his own supporters to help pay her bills.

Don't even talk about her being ahead in polls until there have been a couple of debates. She's hiding in the shadows, being as noncommittal as possible, coasting on name recognition, amassing her fortune.

But hey... you just keep repeating that "money trumps everything" mantra. By the time Hillary crawls out of hiding clutching her resources, it will be too late to stop Sanders' momentum.

*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“The problem is she ran a campaign like they were staying at the Ritz-Carlton,” Mr. Trippi said. “Everything was the best. The most expensive draping at events. The biggest charter. It was like, ‘We’re going to show you how presidential we are by making our events look presidential.’ ”

For instance, during the week before the Jan. 19 caucuses in Nevada, the Clinton campaign spent more than $25,000 for rooms at the Bellagio in Las Vegas; nearly $5,000 was spent at the Four Seasons in Las Vegas that week. Some staff members also stayed at Planet Hollywood nearby.

(snip)

“The Senate race spending in 2006 was an omen for a lot of us inside the campaign, but Hillary assured us that her presidential bid would be the best run in history,” said one major Clinton fund-raiser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the campaign.

Yet the Clinton campaign at times found itself spending money on items that were not ultimately helpful. As part of their get-out-the-vote effort in Iowa, the campaign came up with a plan to have a local supermarket deliver sandwich platters to pre-caucus parties. It spent more than $95,384 on Jan. 1 at Hy-Vee Inc., a local grocery chain in West Des Moines, Iowa, in addition to buying loads of snow shovels to clear the walks for caucusgoers. Mrs. Clinton came in third in the Jan. 3 caucus. It did not snow.

[brooklynite]

80. Money isn't a solution; but it's a threshold

You still need a good campaign team, you need mainstream policies the public will agree with and you need the qualitative factors that factor into candidate choices. But you also MUST have the resources to pay for a professional campaign team, advertising, polling and the other tools that are a necessity in politics.

[Ino]

101. Well, I hope you're sending her big donations then...

she needs $100K of your resources for 2 weeks in the Hamptons.

[brooklynite]

104. Sorry - what does her vacation have to do with her campaign?

And if your implication is that Bernie DOESN'T need a large warchest, care to tell us -- precisely -- what he DOES need to beat a Republican on a national playing field.

[Ino]

115. You said money is a HUGE reason to vote for Hillary.

It is a pathetic reason. She squandered her huge war chest in 2008. She is squandering it now... because if money is what matters, Trump will win, eh? He has more money than everyone. That is, if Hillary even gets to the general! She lost the 2008 primary, in debt.

So what is Dead-Broke Hillary doing to win the primary, when she's not taking $100K vacations? She's roping off the press, triangulating her positions, focus-grouping her statements, and just-in-time evolving her opinions. She talks to little hand-picked groups. She's fending off scandals, however bullshit they may be. She's coasting on name recognition. She's sarcastic, petulant, condescending.

She needs authenticity. She doesn't have it. She's never had it. She needs to connect with regular people. She's not doing that. They think she's a liar, dishonest, untrustworthy.

Her well-funded, slick campaign of inevitability in 2008 imploded against the most unconventional of opponents -- an African-American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama.... who was inspiring, who transcended politics-as-usual.

Yet here you are arguing for politics-as-usual, for a politician-as-usual... claiming that another such man who resonates with the people can't possibly win against The Machine, against the status quo, against an elite, against money. Because he talks to thousands of people at a time for free, instead of 100 people who pay him thousands for the privilege.

The more people know Sanders, the sooner debates are held, the more debates that are held, the more donations he will get. Hillary knows that... that's why her henchwoman is limiting and delaying debates as long as possible. It's all part of her cynical strategy to win at all costs, with the public being the losers.

What "precisely" does Sanders need to beat a Repuke? Would that be "a good campaign team, mainstream policies, qualitative factors, resources"? Sanders just needs to be himself. It seems he's doing fine.

[hifiguy]

55. +1 The repukes are drooling at the thought of running against her in the general.

And the fact that "liar" is word most associated with her by the public will be a BIG help, I am sure.

[Bubzer]

63. I agree that having a huge money war-chest is a terrible reason to vote for a candidate.

[DrBulldog]

51. I have yet to hear why ...

. . . he cannot.

[JDPriestly]

56. Your underlying assumption is that Hillary will win.

I disagree.

I think the Republicans have poisoned the well that her candidacy is drawn from.

And Bill Clinton's signing so many awful bills doesn't make that water sweet either.

I honestly believe that Bernie Sanders with his honesty and authenticity has a better chance to win in 2016 than does Hillary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. No sale.

[Armstead]

85. And if he were to get the nomination and Democrats don't support him does that mean they would be...

Just like they accuse Nader of being?

SPOLIERS who are happy to hand the the GOP a victory?

[brooklynite]

86. I've never blamed Nader for 2000; I've always blamed Gore for running a mediocre campaign...

...that said, while the Party will give the nominee support, the CANDIDATE is still expected to raise his/her own funds, and some people may choose to hedge their bets.

[neverforget]

111. "they also have the least to lose if we don't"

[Ron Green]

116. That says it in a nutshell, doesn't it?

It's all about the money, nothing about our chance to really turn it around.

[eridani]

118. His supporters donate at $30.12 per donation

People who can't afford more than that have the most to lose? On what planet?

[A Simple Game]

95. So if Bernie makes it to the general election you don't see how he can overcome the

Republican's money advantage?

Probably the same way he had to overcome Hillary's money advantage, by giving people someone to vote for instead of having to vote against someone.

Besides if you really are honest with yourself you will realize Hillary can't win the general election but Bernie will win in a landslide and have enormous coattails. People really, really want someone to vote for and Hillary is just a vote against the Republican candidate who's supporters will be out in droves to vote against her.

[frylock]

38. Sanders dining with Congressional staffers proves that he can't work with his colleagues..

yeah, that shit was actually posted here.

[JDPriestly]

57. Bernie was up and running on the issues and did not need a listening tour or a lot of paid

advisers BECAUSE HE SPENT HIS LUNCH HOURS TALKING POLITICS AND ISSUES WITH INTERNS.

This is fun.

It explains why Bernie has caught on with the millenials. They are his lunch buddies. I absolutely love that fact. It explains so much about Bernie. How he talks. Why he has ready answers. Why he is so honest. The whole works.

Bernie has kept his mind young. What a wonderful thing for him to have done for our country.

[sibelian]

74. Well, of course it was, what else would you expect them to do?

They don't have a case. Only suggestion and innuendo.

[erronis]

40. Let's compare apples and apples. Bernie's net worth vs. the Clinton's (both of them) $30MM in 16 m.

I'm not disagreeing with the probability that Bernie doesn't have as much wealth as Hillary. But Bernie is married (as is Hillary) and earnings are not the same as "average net worth" (whatever "average" means in his tax filings.)

[JDPriestly]

58. Please explain your post to someone like me hwo doesn't understand your approach.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about but would like to.

Thanks if you can explain it.

[erronis]

78. Re: Please explain your post to someone like me hwo doesn't understand your approach.

Bernie Sanders is not your big establishment candidate. He doesn’t hang out with the “rich crowd.” In fact, he is one of the least wealthy candidates running for office. According to his latest tax filings, he has an average net worth of $330,507 as compared to that of Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband, earned $30 million over the last 16 months alone.

This little snippet from the OP says that Bernie has an average net worth of $330,507. That seems to mean that everything that he owns (minus liabilities) is around $330,000. It doesn't include his wife's holdings which may be substantial (she was a college president.( It doesn't represent yearly income. It is just his net wealth - it has nothing to do with cash flow or income.

The same paragraph lists Hillary's and Bill's income over a 16 month period was $30,000,000. Income is not the same as wealth.

Just for the sake of argument let's try the following hypotheticals:

- Bernie made $100,000,000 last year but still only has $330,000 in wealth. He is a profligate spender and doesn't invest much at all. Since the article only references Bernie, we can't make any assumptions about his wife.

- Hillary and Bill got $30,000,000 in 16 months. This might be revenues to their charitable foundation or they may be cash to be stashed in tax havens - who knows. However, supposed receipts over 16 months don't say anything about wealth. Perhaps most of that $30MM went to charities. There is no distinction in this article.

Wealth is not equal to income. Usually correlated.

All I'm saying is that these types of articles need to be accurate otherwise they're almost more trouble than they are worth.

[JDPriestly]

84. Thank you. Clearly we need to require all candidates to disclose their wealth in a format

that is consistent for all.

I would be surprised if Bernie's wealth or income is anywhere near as high as the Clintons.

Properties in New York state are bound to be more highly valued than properties in Vermont.

And while college presidents make high enough salaries, and Bernie and his wife could have some income from speeches, I seriously doubt that the Sanders' family income even approaches that of the Clintons' family income.

If I had my way, the income for the couple, the family unit that lives in one household would all be disclosed.

The wealth should be separately disclosed in my view.

And the sources of the income, each individually for any some over a given amount should be disclosed as to its origin.

[DrBulldog]

49. And don't forget Hillary's "little summer job" last year that earned her $1.6 million ...

... delivering speeches for Canadian energy companies.

Why isn't this fact being made more public? How could anyone legitimately run for President of the United States after having done this?

[Autumn]

53. I really only need one. He is not the run of the mill establishment small d democrat.

But all six of those reasons suit me to a tee.

[Sancho]

61. Hmmm, I think Bernie is giving exactly the reasons why he is wrong and Hillary is right!

Here's the first one: Hillary has been working for years, using her first hand experience in the boardroom and as a lawyer to create regulations that would actually work: not the simplistic ranting to "break up the banks" that can't happen internationally and that wouldn't even make a difference in the US!! Bernie's message is simple, easy to understand, and WRONG. You can look at some of Hillary's history and proposals easily.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fair-and-free-economy/

In order to understand why Bernie is wrong, we'll start with #1. I don't have time for a lengthy post on all six right now. This will keep folks busy for a few minutes anyway. There are links at the bottom as part of the debate.

Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US. The US can't "break up" international banks. As we all know, even getting Congress or the FED to regulate in the US is a challenge. Dodd-Frank is moving to do as much as possible and it's not fully implemented yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html

Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study

The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.

Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the study’s author.

“There’s a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates,” Henry told The Huffington Post. “The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that world’s policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.”

http://www.davispolk.com/dodd-frank/

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The legislation marks the greatest change to the financial landscape in decades, affecting the regulation of domestic and foreign financial institutions, banking entities and commercial companies. Many of the Dodd-Frank Act's provisions rely heavily on rulemaking and interpretation by financial regulators. Since Dodd-Frank's enactment, Davis Polk has offered a growing suite of resources to help institutions and market participants understand and comply with the new requirements and stay informed about recent rules, regulator studies, important dates and upcoming deadlines in the implementation process.

SOLVING THE "TOO BIG TO FAIL" PROBLEM: RESOLUTION AUTHORITY VS. CHAPTER 14

On June 20, 2012, Davis Polk lawyers Randall Guynn and John Douglas spoke on a teleforum entitled, “Solving the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Problem: Resolution Authority vs. Chapter 14.” The event was hosted by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies’ Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group, and explores the Too Big to Fail problem in the post-Dodd-Frank era.

http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/solving-the-too-big-to-fail-problem-resolution-authority-vs-chapter-14-podcast

http://www.c-span.org/video/?327191-3/washington-journal-roundtable-doddfrank-financial-law

[cali]

62. lol.

[Enthusiast]

79. Stop laughing! Breaking up the banks would do nothing!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[d_legendary1]

88. Nice of you to cherry pick information

while disregarding history at the same time. Remember the bank bailouts of 2008? It wasn't large, multinational banks that were bailed out. It was large, American institutions who received billions of dollars since they threatened our economy with collapse.

Although China has the biggest banks in the world they are by no means true global banks, unlike our banks that have caused havoc on the world's markets. It was enough to piss off the Germans into writing their own market regulations, but since the threat came from the U.S. their laws won't apply to our bankers.

-Sanders has always talked about reigning in those offshore tax havens on the Thom Hartmann Program. He always talked about how corporations pay a 7% tax rate after using the loopholes in our tax system. He's passed forth legislation that would end some corporate welfare, but the GOP and Thirdwayers seem to want to keep the gravy train going.

-The Dodd-Frank Bill was weak to begin with. Hillary wants to keep it that way.

[Sancho]

94. So you ignore history from last year and make my point!!!

A lot of the Greece bailout was due to US bank manipulation. Check it out!!

As I said, without international agreements between the US, EU, China (or else closings loopholes and making the US isolated economically), breaking up US banks is like wack-a-mole. They just pop out somewhere else.

[d_legendary1]

131. Changing your point I see

First you said:

"...not the simplistic ranting to "break up the banks" that can't happen internationally and that wouldn't even make a difference in the US!!"

Then said:

Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help. Most big banks are not in the US, and most influential money is not in the US.

And then follow up with:

The US can't "break up" international banks.

and proceed to give us a list.

Now its:

"A lot of the Greece bailout was due to US bank manipulation."

Which is it? Also Goldman Sachs got Greece into the Eurozone by hiding its debt. The bailouts were left to the Eurozone to handle since they made their money.

Some of us don't have short memories. Sanders wants to break up the banks (too big to fail), regulate Wall Street so when it gambles we don't pay the losses, and have companies pay their fair share in taxes by removing off shore tax havens. The guy's not short sighted. He knows what he's doing.

BTW Exclamation points don't make more right!!!!

[jalan48]

65. Hillary is the Democrat on the Wall Street Team.

[Sancho]

66. Trade policies in the 21st century? #2 and why Bernie is wrong again....

Bernie hates all trade policies and would dump them all.

As a matter of the record, when studied by scholars, there's not a consensus (including among progressives and Democrats) that trade policies are universally bad. The US has 20 trade agreements now. Here's some of the record on the most notable policy: NAFTA . That's followed by some neutral discussions about TPP.

nafta and tpp

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

Meanwhile, Hillary has a lengthy history of evaluating each trade agreement one at a time in the context of that particular situation. She has voted "yes" and supported some agreements, voted "no" and came out against other agreements, and worked to improve agreements with parts she did not think were best for the US. She has stated repeatedly that, as President, she would not sign an agreement that hurt American workers. Hillary has real experience negotiating with other countries on trade agreements. They are complex, and have to be carefully considered. Bernie is again simplistic and reactive. Bernie often talks about the Scandinavian economy. Most of the counties he espouses have trade agreements much like the ones that Obama is negotiating now: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/finland_e.htm

You can get started by looking at Hillary's record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

[Cha]

124. Thank you so much, Sancho.. one poster couldn't handle your research so all he had was..

to call you dishonest.

Mahalo again for researching this.

[Sancho]

68. On number 3, Bernie almost needs to be fact checked by Politifact. He usually isn't so careless.

The Keystone is in limbo now, and so that is more of a symbol of overall policy than anything else. It's true that Obama has been a little weak on energy change, but some of us remember Jimmy Carter discussion it decades ago. In fact, EVERY US President since Carter has made public statements about energy independence and "renewables". Now that the water is rising and the climate is crazy, the average person is getting more aware of fossil fuels.

We all know that we've banned CFC's, regulated auto millage, etc. for a long time as baby steps in the renewable war. All the Democratic Presidents are going to push the energy plank. Hillary is VERY aware that this is not just a US problem or something revolving around one pipeline - and she's been on board with this issue for a long time:

“So to those who doubt the science of climate change and who lack faith in American innovation, just tell them, look at the record and look at what’s already happening across the United States. Thanks to smart federal and state policies, academic research, private sector innovation, and the crucial work of groups like LCV, we are already advancing clean energy solutions that can begin turning this tide and can make America the clean energy superpower for the 21st century. We have the opportunity to invest in the infrastructure of the future resilient enough to withstand the effects of climate change we won’t be able to avoid, including next-generation power plants to produce electricity more cleanly, smarter grids to deliver it more effectively, and greener buildings to use it more efficiently.” -Hillary Clinton remarks to the League of Conservation Voters, New York, 12/1/14

Boosting alternative energy power. Hillary Clinton repeatedly voted for legislation that extended the production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy sources and she proposed making tax credits for wind and solar production permanent. Hillary also teamed up with Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to create new job-training programs for renewable energy workers.

Fighting for cleaner energy. Hillary Clinton repeatedly cosponsored the Clean Power Act to get power plants to cut back on air pollution that contributes to both global warming and health problems. The 2007 legislation would have increased renewable energy use by launching the goal of generating 20% of our electricity from renewables by the year 2020 – the so-called Renewable Portfolio Standard. Hillary also pledged to support a goal of generating 25% of our electric power from renewable energy sources by 2025.

Using excess oil profits to develop new energy technologies. Hillary Clinton proposed getting big oil companies to reinvest some of their excess profits to help reduce American dependence on oil. These investments – combined with the savings gained by repealing tax breaks for oil companies – could have directed $50 billion into a new Strategic Energy Fund geared towards researching and developing smarter energy technologies like more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and wind and solar power.

Modernizing buildings to save energy and money. Hillary Clinton worked across the aisle to get the federal government to expand the use of geothermal energy in powering its buildings. She introduced legislation to make federal buildings more energy efficient and she proposed making energy efficiency “a core mission” of the General Services Administration. Hillary also introduced legislation to help states upgrade school buildings to make them more energy efficient.

Getting cleaner vehicles on the road. Hillary Clinton cosponsored the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act to allow more investment in technologies to reduce pollution from diesel-powered trucks and other modes of transportation. She procured funding for the creation of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Hillary also passed legislation to reduce air pollution from construction equipment used on highway projects, and she even teamed up with one of the Senate’s climate change deniers to fund cleaner school bus emissions across the nation.

Bringing America’s power grid into the 21st century. Hillary Clinton cosponsored the Electric Reliability Act to give the federal government more authority to make America’s power grid more reliable and efficient. She advocated moving more aggressively towards smart grid technology and called for a nationwide net metering standard so that “families and companies that install these new technologies can sell power back to the grid for a fair price all over the country.”

Prioritizing cleaner energy worldwide. Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department joined the Department of Energy and other U.S. government agencies in a regional partnership with countries in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean to promote clean energy development and smarter growth policies. Through this program, the U.S. has collaborated with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promoted cleaner energy through the Peace Corps, and connected public and private-sector officials across the hemisphere with renewable energy companies in America.

Getting smarter energy projects off the ground in Africa. Hillary Clinton helped launch a new partnership – the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative – to jump-start private sector investment in cleaner energy projects and sustainable development across Africa. Funding provided through the initiative sparked wind, solar and hydro-powered projects in several African nations bringing electricity to thousands of homes.

Finding common goals with China to address access to reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy. Hillary Clinton spearheaded U.S. relations with China to enhance cooperation on climate change, energy and the environment. Under bilateral agreements, the U.S. and China established frameworks for increasing access to reliable, sustainable, and affordable energy as well as connecting businesses and government to support energy and environmental goals.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-energy-innovation/

[pansypoo53219]

69. biggest for me. the gnewz media is trying to Gore her. they want NEW, they want SQUIRREL!(tRUMP).

[calimary]

133. Good point!

They're still beating her email business to death. And this strange phrase keeps coming up among on-camera reporters so far: "there's no smoking gun."

Think THAT will be the end of it? PATHETIC! They tried this never-ending persecution shit with her husband when he was President and the most they ever got was a stained blue dress.

And btw, Sancho, MOST interesting reading!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Yep.

[Sancho]

77. We all know Bernie gets excited and talks in simple bullet points, but he's off base again.

First, NONE of the Democratic candidates would touch SS, and everyone of them would expand it, strengthen it, and prevent it's privatization at all costs. In that sense they are the same.

Bernie is trying to hawk another of his simplistic economic solutions that he thinks would make a difference to the inequity we've all talked about for a few years. He proposes raising the SS cap on taxable income. NOTE THEY LAST PART: Taxable Income. Even a post on DU this week demonstrated a tax dodge to get around this new law - if it ever passed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251560231
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/08/30/tax-planning-for-the-risk-of-a-bernie-sanders-win/

Social Security

This proposal is huge in my mind. They would apply the social security tax on incomes over $250,000 The current limit is $118,500. So it seems like there would be a tax-free bubble between $118,500 and $250,000. It’s hard to see the policy justification for the bubble, but that is neither here nor there. This change would cost Sanders main opponent Hillary Clinton well over $1,000,000 in self-employment tax on her self-employment income, mainly from speeches, of over $13,390,499. The current solution, not open to Hillary probably for political reasons, is to do what Newt Gingrich did and run your income through an S Corporation.

If you have thought about converting your business to an S Corporation and passed it by, you should probably think again. There is an immediate savings on the medicare tax, as long as you are not piggy about it and it would pay off big time if this change went through. Certainly if you are running a professional practice as a C corporation and bonusing everything out, you should really take another look. You probably should do that anyway, but here is an extra incentive.

Hillary is well aware of ways to protect SS, and she has mentioned raising the cap as a possible change years ago. She is also aware it's a waste of time without closing loopholes. Hillary has repeatedly states she would protect SS. She also does not want to increase taxes on the middle class. Simply raising the cap would likely affect more middle class families, while the wealthy would simply use a tax dodge to avoid paying the increase. Bernie's plan needs to avoid that regressive problem, and that's the main reason it's not a simple fix. Remember that with inflation, what affects the rich now will be "middle class" in a decade or two. Raising the cap might work in favor of the rich and against the middle class if it's not implemented correctly, so maybe it's not a good idea.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase

During her 2008 presidential bid, Clinton was relatively non-committal about reforms to the Social Security program. She said in 2007 that certain reforms such as cutting benefits, privatizing the program or raising the retirement age were "off the table." There were some articles at the time that gave mixed signals on whether she would be willing to increase payroll taxes.
One account from the Associated Press featured a conversation between a campaigning Clinton and an Iowa voter in which the candidate said she might consider committing more of workers' income to Social Security. "She told him she didn't want to put an additional tax burden on the middle class but would consider a 'gap,' with no Social Security taxes on income from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed," according to the article.

[Cha]

125. Mahalo, Sancho~

[thesquanderer]

132. Hillary was against raising the cap; is now considering it

at least according to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/12/clinton-is-open-to-raising-social-security-taxes-on-six-figure-earners/

So far, Clinton hasn't embraced the liberal prescription for Social Security, but her views could be changing. At a town hall here Tuesday, she said she'd be open to a Social Security tax increase proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her radical rival in the primary.
...
Sanders's proposal -- increasing payroll taxes, but only for the wealthiest earners -- resembles the one President Obama laid out as a candidate in 2008.
...
At the time, Clinton opposed the idea. "I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax," she said in a Democratic primary debate then.

So far in this campaign, she has not taken a clear position on the question of Social Security's future.

[Sancho]

81. Number 5: again, it's not the principle but the details...

Bernie wants a $15 minimum wage for everyone. All of the Democratic candidates believe in a minimum wage increase, and all have different ways to achieve economic improvements (more on this later).

Hillary is aware that many times the minimum wage is set locally by a state or community. Any federal wage increase will face major opposition, so stepping on the toes of states and locals guarantees a political and court fight, so it's practical to do as much as you can that might actually be passed. Also, Hillary (and many economists) are aware that a single minimum wage doesn't make sense with you compare NYC to Spartanburg, SC. It may be possible to get a floor level, but that's an arbitrary number and not defendable if you have to fight off 20 state and 50 local lawsuits. Bernie can "call" for whatever he wants, but the universal minimum wage will be tough to see actually pass the legal tests.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-wants-fast-food-workers-make-more-money

Hillary Clinton threw her support behind efforts to boost the minimum wage for fast food restaurant workers on Friday. "The national minimum wage is a floor, and it needs to be raised," Clinton said during a wide-ranging speech on Friday that centered on various problems with New York's corporate culture.

But there's one pretty big hitch to Clinton's endorsement: it only applies to folks who work in New York. The idea Clinton is backing comes from a panel appointed by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Earlier this week, that panel recommended slowly raising the minimum wage for fast food workers so that it eventually reaches $15 per hour by July 2021 (with the rate increasing at a faster clip for people who work within New York City, where the cost of living is higher, so that employers would be required to pay workers there that $15 rate by 2018).

While Clinton may support a higher wage for workers in New York, she's resisted liberals' calls to raise the national minimum wage to $15 per hour. "I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments," Clinton said in New Hampshire last week. "And what you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places."

Over many decades, Hillary has been the best advocate for wages because of her proposals that impact MILLIONS. One is a path to citizenship for 10-30 million Americans who can be paid whatever the employer wants because they are off the books!! Also, MILLIONS of women who are underpaid (often illegally) because salaries are not transparent and there's no teeth to gender discrimination. Hillary's proposals would actually add more money to most households than ANY minimum wage increase.

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-a-fighter-for-equal-pay/
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-and-immigration/
http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment/
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/

[Cha]

126. Yes, all the candidates want $15 per hour but, it's not viable in all areas.. does BS pay his

workers that much?

Gracias, Sancho~

[thesquanderer]

130. Correction: Hillary wants $12/hr. (n/t)

[Sancho]

82. #6 Hillary has stated that voting for the IWR was a mistake, and this was on DU earlier this week:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109

After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”
“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109#ixzz3kQViJgMj

There seems to be a meme here that I've responded to factually before:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=556376

My point is that Bernie, Hillary, and LOTS of politicians make mistakes. Some recognize them and deal with it. Others repeat the same speech for decades, and don't really have the character to say when they are wrong.

You decide what you want. Bernie is not a "bad" guy, and he makes a good speech that resonates with people's frustrations. His solutions are too simple and he lacks experience in some key areas of government. The six reasons are not as clear cut as Bernie wants to make them.

[grahamhgreen]

92. Her mistake cost us 8 trillion dollars, countless lives, and ou security. Can't afford another.

[Lordquinton]

120. Like the SCOUS justice who said the Bush V Gore decision was a mistake

Thanks for admitting to it, but can you also cop to the damage that was caused by your "mistake"?

[grahamhgreen]

139. Exactly. Without consequences to their actions, they'll continue to make more mistakes.

[Sancho]

128. 81 Democrats voted for the IWR...it was not "her mistake".

and Bernie has also voted to support funding for the military multiple times. It's irrational to hold Hillary "responsible" for voting to enforce a UN resolution that Bush/Cheney turned into a 10 year war. If you want to be a "one-issue", "one-vote" supporter, then I would never vote for Bernie because of his supporting the military-industrial complex. Would you like the links (again)? In hindsight, NO ONE voted to go to war. Congress did NOT vote for a declaration of war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=556376

Of course, anyone can disagree with me if they like:

First the "premise":

There are only 3 reasons to have voted for the IWR.


That's simply not true nor provable. For example, someone could have taken a large bribe from a middle east country (Iran? Kuwait) in order to attack Iraq!! Isn't that what we're looking for in those emails between the yoga and cake recipes?

For that matter, someone could have taken a large bribe to vote AGAINST the IWR (Israel?)!!! There's no way to state that there are "ONLY 3 REASONS".

Next, since we really don't KNOW the reason or how many reasons there really are...the next conclusion can't follow, but let's look at it anyway:

They are all contemptible.
Let's check in for contemptible:

deserving of contempt or scorn; worthless; despicable

http://www.yourdictionary.com/contemptible

and apply it to the "reasons":

1) You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to go to war.

2) For whatever reasons, you wanted a war with Iraq.

3) Political expediency. You thought voting yes would be better for your political career.


#1 Many parts to this logical disaster:

Do intelligent people ever make mistakes? If they do, should they be held in contempt as worthless because they made a mistake? Has Bernie or Jimmy Carter or any other person you can name made a "mistake" even though by all accounts they were actually intelligent? If so, does that mean they are people of bad character and worthy of contempt?

I say "NO". If Bernie made a mistake voting for continued military funding, voting to protect gun manufacturers, or failing to run as a Democrat in past decades - I consider those mistakes. That doesn't mean that Bernie is "stupid" or that he should be held in contempt. It just means he made some big judgmental mistakes. If he's a person of character, he will realize his mistakes and fess up and report his change of position!!!

You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to go to war.


Millions of people trusted Bush/Cheney - including lots of politicians, Democrats, and international leadership from all over the world. Some believed them outright, others were skeptical, but I was even wondering (at the time) if Colin Powell was really reporting the truth about Iraq at the UN. 82 Democrats in the House and 29 in the Senate voted "yea".

The IWR was not a "blank check", in theory it was to support the UN resolution. In hindsight we all know that Congress declares "war". What happened to Obama's request for support last year? The fact that Congress doesn't do it's job is not "stupid" either - it's a problem - but not stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


#2
For whatever reasons, you wanted a war with Iraq.


Again, there simply is no logic here. The IWR did not "declare war"! It allowed Bush to create a mess, but it was not a declaration of war. It was to "defend national security" and "enforce a UN resolution." In hindsight it seems easy, but remember this was before we knew what would happen. Do you really think that Hillary or Congress wanted a war? If so, why not put forth a declaration of war? There have been LOTS of UN resolutions, and some have been pretty irrelevant (no fly zones or cease fires), but others have been preludes to what can only be called wars. I don't really see that most of Congress wanted war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. In almost every case part of government managed to get the US sucked into a conflict that was always difficulty to predict or else most would never have gotten into it in the first place. This is nothing new, and likely it will happen again. Democratic Presidents seem to avoid getting sucked in much more often than repubs. Still, it appears to happen over and over. It doesn't follow that those who voted for the IWR "wanted war".

#3
Political expediency. You thought voting yes would be better for your political career.


Logically, that could be said for those who voted "Yea" and those who voted "Nea". There's no telling if some voted - not because they HATED the idea of war, but only because they thought the people then represented (in Vermont or NY) simply wanted them to vote that way!!! It doesn't mean either was "wrong" or " immoral" or "stupid" or "contemptible" because they voted the way that the people who sent them to Washington wanted them to vote!! Is there any other reason that Bernie isn't stronger on gun control? He's representing his constituents! F35? Heck, Bernie in that case voted AGAINST most of his voters! Why? Was he "stupid" or did he "want a war with Canada" or was he paid off by the MI complex? Who knows? What we do know is that politicians in the House and Senate will OFTEN vote to represent their district or state, even it if conflicts with their personal beliefs. Bernie, Hillary, and almost all politicians do that sometimes. It's a compromise, and they often go back and try to educate their voters, and they sometimes lose the next election. No one can ignore the people who sent them to Washington. If they do, then won't have a political career. Anyone who has lasted more than a few years MUST have done what was "better for your political career" at some point. That is NOT "contemptible". You may not agree with any or all of those representing others, but deriding them is bad form and logic.

For example, Vermont is a state that does NOT have tuition equity for undocumented people. NY and Maryland do. That means that if you were brought to Vermont as a 5 year old (illegally) and went your whole life to school in Vermont while your parents worked and paid taxed in Vermont - your would pay OUT OF STATE tuition just like an international student!! Maybe you would not be admitted to college at all! Is that fair? If I was an immigrant and voting in a Democratic primary, I would be concerned about someone from a state with that kind of unfair situation. Does that make Bernie "contemptible"? No, but it means he "owns" the place he represents.
http://cccie.org/images/stories/DEEP_Tuition_Equity_Map_August_2013.pdf

In other words, OPs that just "bash" don't change anyone's mind, and don't provide any new information to the discussion about candidates in most cases. I'd prefer to see real issues discussed. If someone didn't like the IWR and they are a one-issue voter, that's fine, but it's a stretch to call anyone "contemptible", especially if it's one of our fine Democratic candidates.

[grahamhgreen]

140. There are consequences to votes that increase our debt by 8 trillion.

[Cha]

127. I so agree with your last paragraph.. thank you!

[Huddie94]

99. The multiple postings from "Sancho" tell us

everything we need to know for why Bernie is honest and the folks backing Hillary Clinton are not.

Hillary is better than this. Don't blame her.

[sheshe2]

110. How so?

The multiple postings from "Sancho" tell us
everything we need to know for why Bernie is honest and the folks backing Hillary Clinton are not.

[Cha]

123. "Bernie is honest and the folks backing Hillary Clinton are not." All you have are insults and

personal attacks.

[sulphurdunn]

100. When GW Bush

was president, I realized I was smarter than he was. When Bernie is elected, I'll be richer than he is.

[bigwillq]

103. I plan on voting for Bernie.

Just don't think Hillary Clinton is the direction the country needs to go in, imo.

No more Clinton, Bush, Biden.

[BeanMusical]

109. Kick and R

[ion_theory]

112. K&R.

This is the most that the media will get from Bernie on the lines of 'Hillary bashing.' Sticking right with the issues and not talking about her pants suits.

[Paka]

113. Big K&R.

There's no doubt in my mind who to support. Love me some Bernie!

[rock]

134. Every time I see it it I think

are people stupid or just obdurate. Once again Hillary did not vote for the War in Iraq, she voted for the resolution that allowed w* to have the authority for a quick decision about a war in Iraq.

[olddots]

142. Bernie is not a materialist

That is why I will vote for him .

[liberal_at_heart]

143. When did we get used to having millionaire politicians? When did that become the new norm?

Millionaires certainly shouldn't be excluded but neither should people who are not millionaires. We need people who understand the problems of the people of America, and our current millionaire government does not.