2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy I don't Trust Hillary Clinton!
1) Her support for the disastrous Iraq War which has led to the current state of affairs in the ME which many ordinary people were able to predict back when the Cheney/Bush administration were obviously lying to the American people. Well it was obvious to many of us and to some good Reps like Bernie Sanders.Iow, Hillary is a War Hawk and that is the last thing we need leading this country right now. We need to put an end to our Imperial Wars which have placed this country in MORE danger.
2) Her close ties to Wall St which go way back BEFORE 9/11. There is no way any politician can take the enormous amounts of money distributed into our elections by Wall St and other huge Corporations, and claim they are not influenced by that.
Anyone who doubts that, only has to look at Hillary's vote on the Bankruptcy Bill, a Bill she correctly opposed while she was First Lady.
Here Elizabeth Warren discusses that very vote and how and perhaps why, Hillary changed her mind when she became a Senator, AFTER receiving huge donations FROM Wall St:
&feature=youtu.be
3) Her support for the horrible Welfare Reform Bill which caused several people to quit her husband's administration in protest of his signing of the Bill and Hillary's work to 'get votes for it' as she has admitted. That Bill has created an even more dire situation for Poor, Single Mothers and their Children. One in Six American children go to bed hungry every day now, and that Bill took away a safety net very much needed for those families
It did, howeve, force mothers into the workforce to do menial jobs, benefiting Corporations with the prospect of cheap labor. So there is that.
4) While she SAYS she opposes Citizens United, she takes ADVANTAGE of it by accepting Super Pacs working for her campaign through which, thanks to CU, untold amounts of money can pour into campaigns through a back door and we the people cannot know who the donors are or how much they are donating.
5) Her record on major issues has constantly changed over the years. She has failed to be supportive of major policies that benefit minorities AT THE TIME she was asked to make those decisions.
But then, when the political winds have shifted, others have done the heavy lifting, she will claim to have 'evolved', too late!
6) On the TPP and other Trade Policies, she has been WRONG, over and over again. Again, seeing the political atmosphere she shifts her position during campaign season, leaving us to wonder, but 'what if she wins'? Will she change AGAIN?
7) The Keystone Pipeline. She refused to state her position on that awful, potential environmental disaster initially, telling us nothing about where SHE stood on the issue. Then again, changed her mind under pressure from many groups to get a definitive answer from someone who is asking the public to elect her.
8) One the biggest turnoffs for me in a politician is the USE OF RELIGION as a reason for denying Civil Rights to any candidate. When Hillary invoked the 'Sanctity of Marriage' argument just two years ago in opposing Marriage Equality, I found it to be most disturbing.
9) Her refusal to go with the $15 dollar minimum wage policy knowing that even that is hardly going to allow workers to live in any kind of luxury. I have a definite reaction to wealthy people deciding that the rest of us don't even deserve to be paid a fair wage for the work we do.
There are other reasons, but I cannot trust any politician who makes mistake after mistake on major issues because even if we accept they were all mistakes, what guarantee do we have that such a politician won't make more of them IF we give them the job they are asking for??
Sen. Sanders has been consistent throughout his long political career on the issues. While circumstances do change for a politician once the reach the WH, I trust him to do his very best, to FIGHT for what he has always believed in.
Those are some of the reasons why I trust Sanders rather than Hillary to be the next President of the US.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)What bothers me the most about her is that she seems to switch sides depending on what seems to be expedient for her and not due to considered research, new information, etc.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which I found to be very disturbing, invoking religion to oppose policy should not have a place in our system of government, it is completely against the Constitution imo.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)With DOMA...or something...
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)...just like the Mormon church is protecting them.
<---------- just in case!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Legislated, the RW had all the momentum on this subject of gay marriage. They had successfully used it as a major wedge issue in the last election and most voters seemed to be agaist "gay marriage", because it would "destroy the traditional family". Hillary read the political tea leaves and came to the determination that she should come out in favor of DOMA to get more brownie points from the electorate for when she runs to become "the first woman president", evah!
Everything she does is about her and her presidential aspirations rather than any convictions towards others.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)1. She specifically says in her speech that her vote is not a vote in support of war.
2. What does that mean? Specifically what has she done FOR Wall Street? Bernie didn't seem to know at the debate. Do you?
Your example is wrong. She supported it when it added protections for women and children and she withdrew support when those provisions were removed.
3. She was first lady when that passed. First Ladies don't get a vote. IMO it is sexist to put Bill's actions on her. She is capable of having her own opinions.
4. Thinking we can lay down and die and just let the GOP run all over us is naïve in the extreme. You might as well cede them the election and save our individual donations. CU groups (dark money groups) are going to spend money whether Dems leaning groups do or not.
5. No they haven't. Just no. Issues change. Basic values do not. Same with Bernie, by the way.
6. No she hasn't. Have you read her book? You should. Because every time you post this you look silly to people who have read it. She has said the same things about what would make her support or not support consistently. She voted no on CAFTA, which tends to show that she has standards for trade agreements BEFORE she will support them. This is not a difficult concept.
7. I guess this is an old copy and paste? Both her and Obama have stated they don't support the Keystone pipeline.
8. State's Rights argument Bernie used suit you better? As an LGBT person I can tell you no one cares which argument was trotted out. If pols were honest they would have both said "hey, I hope you don't mind, but I can't get re-elected if I support "gay" marriage."
9. $12 is the right number. More than that is too much in low COL states, but will be raised by states in high COL states. Not a trust issue - it's an economic issue.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)imo, it shows a huge lack of judgement. Bernie knew they were lying. THAT's what we need leading this country
2) She opposes reinstating Glass Steagal. That's more than enough right now for Wall St.
3) She has boasted about how active a participant she was in her husband's administration and USES her term as First Lady as part of her 'political experience'. If she wants to remove that period from her resume, then people will not include her role 'two for one' in that administration. That is HER decision, it was hers to claim they were 'partners'. So spare me the objection to honoring HER request that we look at that part of her political career.
4) Bernie has blown that argument out the window by demonstrating how to run a campaign without those obscene amounts of money which are mostly spent on NEGATIVE campaigning. See Brock and his Hillary Super Pac.
5) Sorry, saying you made a mistake on an issue as big as War isn't a change in values, it's claiming to not have had the judgement to get it right. And that's just one big 'mistake' she has admitted to.
6) Sorry, her record on Trade agreements is clear. Her involvement in the TPP is shameful, now that we know for sure how bad it was from the beginning. 'Gold Standard'. And she continued to support it until she found herself on the wrong side again, just recently. Core values would have caused anyone to object to such an agreement that would destroy our own laws, on the environment etc, but mostly, that would prevent OUR CONGRESS from having a say until years later.
7) Do you think we all develop amnesia from just a couple of months ago? We don't, she was pressured on the Keystone issue and refused to respond, 'until after the election'. Would like a link to the quote? And then, as she so often does, she changed her mind. Credit goes to enormous number of Activists and Organizations who achieved this. And to Obama for finally acknowledging how right they all were.
8) When the Feds won't pass a law, the way around it for the time being is for states to step in, which Vt btw, did, and do it themselves when it involves the Civil Rights of those who live there. It was either that or NO state would allow it. He made the right choice at that time, as always.
9) As I said to Hillary that night on twitter, I would like to see her volunteer to live on $12 per hr herself before telling workers how easy it is to work hard all day and not even come close to earning a decent, livable wage. $15 isn't enough, but it's better than $12 and she had to be pushed even to support that.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Some would consider that stalking I suppose...
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's not stalking.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)1. The easiest lies for people to believe are the biggest. Her state was the largest focus of 9/11 terrorism. 75% of the public supported it. And she specifically stated it was a vote to avoid war, not for war.
2. She's correct - Glass Steagall didn't cause the problem and reinstating it won't solve the problem. It's one of the reasons I am always reminded that she seems to be the only adult in the room.
3. So what? She accomplished things as first lady. In fact I would say she is the most accomplished, remarkable first lady in history. And that is saying something when Roosevelt is part of the competition. Regardless, she is capable of making up her own mind about things. Again, pick up a history book, and you will discover that she and Bill do have different opinions about things.
4. Bernie is not going to win though. Which is kind of the point.
5. See item #1 above.
6. Her record on trade agreements is very clear. So why do you ignore that she voted against the largest one during her time as Senator? (CAFTA) She has a very good record on trade. Consistent with her values, which are liberal.
7. She didn't step on her former boss? That's called respect. It's a thing. She knew he wasn't going to approve it.
8. States raising min wage above the federal rate is NOT a new thing. It sounds like you don't realize that.
9. Min wage is not a career position. Are you living on min wage? I haven't since I was 26 years old. Nobody "pushed" her to support $12 per hour. She has ALWAYS been for increasing the minimum wage.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and if you want to contradict HER on this right now, feel free. One of the most historically, massively tragic decisions this country has made in the living memories of many Americans. There really is no point in denying that.
Bernie as I said, got it right and predicted the results, where we are today.
2) She's WRONG. But go ahead and try to change the facts, it's hard to do, but it's your energy and time. She is so wrong.
3) Well now it's 'so what' re her time as First Lady. At least we made some progress there.
4) I see you own a crystal ball. I don't use them myself, they don't work very well.
5) No need, when something is wrong, it's just wrong! All the spinning in the world won't make it right.
6) No she doesn't have a great record on Trade. She voted against on bill while in the Senate. But throughout her career she has supported awful trade agreements AND Welfare Bills that have so harmed the people of this country.
7) She AGREED with him, AND Influenced him, she says so herself.
8) I realize more than you appear to know.
9) Don't know much about ordinary people it seems. For some of the working class, min wage, especially in bad economies, IS a career wage which is why it needs to be raised. And min wage is NOT a livable wage, however if we go from a better base than where we are now, at least some day workers might get to a livable wage instead of getting into debt and all that stuff the wealthy never have to deal with.
Ok
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Most of us would say NO!!!!!! Especially those who's careers and savings have been destroyed having to compete with those working as indentured servants to fatten the profits of the wealthy who are the only ones who really benefit from that.
And it is likely that the TPP or other Trade deals will eliminate the quotas on these programs which will have all hell break lose.
TPP and "free trade" treaties written by corporations and their revolving door reps in government are NOT "liberal". I'm sorry that you and many others are too blind to see that! They are a cornerstone to the wealthy's efforts to destroy the middle class to reward themselves more.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)support her.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And of course she has been a strong supporter of STEM training and incentives. She's got it right.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)which it is.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's another thing I don't like about Bernie. He seems to be anti immigrant.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Your candidate fully supports it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And it matches Ted Cruz's position perfectly.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/republican-candidate-calls-to-suspend-h1b-visa-for-6-months/articleshow/49777506.cms
frylock
(34,825 posts)Your candidate is pro-slave labor and anti-American worker.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You seem to be lacking in info about this subject.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Why do you hate American tech workers?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... They must be paid the prevailing wage according to the Dol database? Do facts mean anything to you?
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Using those principles, what will happen to the prevailing wage for workers if there is an increase in the supply of them? I'll give you a hint, it's not the same thing that happens to the salaries of the executives who take advantage of it.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)H1-B visas are about nothing if not keeping down wages.
There's a poster here who's been posting articles about this consistently--wish I could remember the alias so I could give a shout-out. And I've saw this first hand, over and over, when I was working in Silicon Valley. Yeah, I know what the law says. But even in worker-friendly California, it's easy to adhere strictly to the letter of the law while completely undermining the spirit.
H1-B abuse is borderline treasonous--and frankly, they're bad for immigrants too. I could make just as strong an argument that YOU are the anti-immigrant Ted Cruz because you're so excited about the indentured servitude that most H1-B programs amount to.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The law requires them to be paid the prevailing wage. For programmers that is between $87-160k, according to the DOL database which is the required measure. Hardly indentured servitude wages.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Yes, the law says what you say it says. If you believe that the H1-B program works in the idyllic way you're describing it, you're WAY the hell out in fantasy land.
You're talking about people's careers here, and you're coming off like if you cover your ears and say LA-LA-LA-LA, everything is hunky dory. I don't think it's your intent, but it's really bad. Please, learn a little bit about the REALITY, and then we can talk.
frylock
(34,825 posts)More than 80 percent of H-1B visa holders are approved to be hired at wages below those paid to American-born workers for comparable positions, according to EPI.
How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Where has Hillary or any Dem supported outsourcing? The H1B program allows 65k visas per year for college graduate or equivalent and 20K for master degree applicants. So let's stick to facts, shall we?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)These are the FACTS maam!!!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This whole statement is explaining how important it is for us to support STEM training so that we don't need to fill the jobs with H1B visa applicants. Did you even watch it?
This, IMO, is so typical of the outlandish attacks on her. They bear no relation to reality. Face it, it is just like ODS. If she found a cure for cancer we'd have half of DU criticizing her for it. SMH.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and EXPANDING the quota on it. Did you listen to it? You aren't in the field obviously. So many would LAUGH at you for claiming that we "need" H-1B visa people to fill jobs that Americans "aren't qualified" for. Until you talk to real experts on this, you are just listening to lobbyist marketing BS and swallowing it whole. That is what will lose for Clinton in the GE if not the primary.
Yes she offers the EXCUSE that are the talking points that Americans need more training, but that is just the BS used to justify putting this program in place.
Did you know that Indians get FREE subsidized bachelor degree educations in their country? And our students have huge college debt with our overpriced educations, and you expect them to try and compete with those that live at a 10th of the cost of living there than we do here, and who come here temporarily to work for far less than American workers need to support themselves and a family HERE rather than having our families located in India where they can live on a lot lower salaries. Add to that and they come here just to pay for graduate degrees, where our kids can barely afford getting a bachelor's degree, and the smart ones are probably more apt to get a law degree or a degree in medicine if they want to enter a field where they can get a job to pay back their college debt, unlike the tech fields and job environment of today.
She can BS as much as she wants about increasing our education in STEM, but it was Bernie that took the lead this time around and offered to give our kids free education that neither Obama or Hillary mentioned back then, which MIGHT have been some way of backing up those BS talking points.
You can live in your own world of UNreality on this matter. It is areas like this where the American people in general are starting to see BS for what it is, and that is why even Republicans this time around are speaking up against the actions of their own party as well (Orrin Hatch is a big part of that H-1B Visa crap too), and you have many like Trump, etc. speaking against it, even if they are feeding the more xenophobic attitudes of their base in this area too.
But the fact is, American workers are getting pushed out of work by this program, and there are many other better ways than doing what Indian outsourcing companies are paying someone like Clinton to push that don't work for us as the 99% here.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)And it makes me sick that some people here are so secure in their sense of entitlement that they're willing to rationalize away the suffering of millions of Americans.
Fuck them.
Alert away, Swarm.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We know Bernie is anti immigrant. Another reason I don't support him.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It is YOU that want to support Hillary's support of this NON-immigration bill (they don't STAY here after their "work term" is up under these visas), and want to have that preferred over them being able to really immigrate here to become a citizen with rights to vote and rights to join a union (that is what DEMOCRATS support). Why are YOU anti immigrant!!!
I've said OVER and OVER again! I WANT a diverse community to work with with workers that I work with all working with EQUAL RIGHTS and not being screwed by the elites! Apparently you don't care about them being screwed in these programs, or us getting screwed by having our jobs taken away to be replaced by virtual slave labor. And you have the NERVE to call us as having your sins!!!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm not anti-immigration. I disagree with Bernie on this issue. Also, what has he done to incentive American workers to be trained for STEM jobs? Nothing as far as I can tell.
So as usual, he complains about a problem, but has no real plan to fix it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Show us that you have SOME degree of intelligence!
Why don't you want these people to have RIGHTS and to be able to compete here for jobs the way they should be able to. Why do you support slave labor that Bernie doesn't, and Hillary also supports!
Explain how being against guest labor crap that doesn't provide for people to IMMIGRATE here, just live here temporarily and work with a lot of rules that keep them from having any kind of rights here is "anti-immigrant"?
Keep ramming down your BS talking point CRAP!!
Bernie wants to give everyone here a chance for a FREE college education! Hillary, not so much, even though she's been doing some late attempts at trying to jump on to Bernie's bandwagon. How is that not helping people getting the option to be trained for STEM jobs?
What you need is more stimulus for kids to WANT to pursue STEM jobs, the same way that I and many did when the tech boom starting out was so promising without this H-1B Visa CRAP polluting it. Many of them with brains realize that if they invest tons of money and debt in to this program, that they will never get a decent job in that sector the way that H-1B visas and TPP/TPIP, etc. Free Trade bill crap has been put in place to help the tech sector outsource our jobs elsewhere. They'd rather invest in a med degree or a law degree where they have less of a prospect of having their job outsourced, so that they might have a shot at paying off their college debt that corporate dems and Republicans have saddled them with.
Next time, quit lying about this and respond to the FACTS here I've given you to give your response!
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Because she and her fans are SO cavalier about the suffering of millions of Americans.
I see you quit replying to me, but you're still repeating LIES about how glorious it is for Americans to have their jobs outsourced, and how H1-Bs are just fucking FANTASTIC for American workers--and hiding behind the letter of the law, at that, when the real outrage is what it's PERFECTLY LEGAL to do.
I swear to Christ, you people are like the religious right. If Hillary is so fucking great, why do you have to LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE to communicate that??
If it sounds like I'm pissed, it's because I am. And YOUR side had the gall a couple of months ago to talk about how "entitled" Bernie supporters are.... while here you are, shitting on millions of Americans because you can't admit the FACTS about your Anointed One.
If anyone here has ANY derangement syndrome, it's the people who are willing to sacrifice the good of the country on the cross of Hillary. Makes me sick.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Bill Gates is the richest man in the US, and he has been pushing for more H1-B Visas more than any single person.
Why?
Cheap labor.
People hired with H1-B Visas are taxed at 50% of the income tax rate.
So, the corporations who hire those people only pay half of the normal income tax rate than they would if they had to hire citizens of the United States.
I live in a reality-based world.
I work for a living.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Seriously.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Deal with it.
I work for a living, I know how H1-B Visas work in realityland.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And it is insulting for someone like you to lecture us who've lived with this CRAP for decades and have our careers destroyed by this program. And NO, we are NOT xenophobic right wingers you seem to want to categorize us as. I'll bet I have MORE friends from places like India, Persia, and other countries that have had so many of their people also victimized by this abused program than you do. My crave for diversity in the work place was one reason I moved to the West Coast from the midwest, and I lived as a kid overseas for much of my childhood. The better solution is to encourage and help streamline real immigration here, so that most of those foreign workers invest in becoming citizens here, and their family spends their income here instead of overseas. That or green cards, that makes the workplace an even playing field where everyone competes evenly for decent salaries without the *INDENTURED SERVANT* restrictions imposed by the H-1B visa program that screws all workers to reward the rich.
This program is being abused by the wealthy elites to exploit cheap labor from overseas with its rules and loopholes that have been built in to it over the years. I've seen that abuse myself personally, from the times I was hearing managers next to me in the 90's joking how they were getting cheap labor from Indian body shops who worked around the "prevailing salary" requirements then by only hiring H-1B workers and therefore having no American employees to measure salaries against, and contracting them as a "service" and not "contract employees" to companies that they would work at.
And I lived next door to an apartment where my old neighbor moved out, and a few H-1B families were being crowded in to that place before their H-1B sponsor later kicked them all out to take the place for himself when there was a housing crisis back in the late 90's in the bay area. I've seen these things happening MYSELF!!!
And if you aren't convinced by that, listen to the congress person that pushed the immigration bill through congress that created this H-1B program, and his comments now on how this program has been abused, and needs to be curtailed now. You need to look more than just government web pages to understand this program and how it is being abused. Government pages on this program aren't going to say things like "Go to this page to see this rule, and you can work around this rule by doing A, and then doing B." That's why the link you posted on how this program is being abused is useless in the real world as others have noted here.
The Boston Globe here isn't exactly a right wing rag...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/30/visa-program-has-been-hijacked-outsourcers/VAg6o9KgS2tuoZ3WbmaqeK/story.html
The reality is that once employees get green cards, they command an American salary and can go elsewhere if they don’t receive it. Much of the competitive advantage of having that worker disappears. Employees on H-1B visas understand this all too well. Online discussion forums are full of workers strategizing about how to escape companies that haven’t given them a raise in years. On one forum, a person identifying himself as a Cognizant employee wrote that he suspected his bosses of deliberately submitting shoddy paperwork for his green card to keep him longer in a low-wage job.
When the H-1B visa program was invented in 1990, no one expected that Indian companies would be its biggest subscribers. “Exploitation of the H-1B by outsourcers is a new abuse,” said Bruce Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman who authored of the 1990 Immigration Act, which gave birth to H-1B visas. Morrison said the law — which vastly expanded employment-based green cards — was designed to curb the abusive practice of bringing temporary workers to fill permanent jobs. He crafted the bill with different professions in mind: nurses, physical therapists, and mechanics who serviced data processing machines, many of whom were from Taiwan and Korea.
“Rather than increase H-1Bs, we need to increase green cards — and deliver them to new hires immediately,” Morrison said. That “would eliminate the disincentive to hire Americans.”
But some companies have become addicted to H-1Bs. For them, the visas created a dream workforce: Young people with no family obligations who feel grateful for the chance to work long hours for relatively low wages. Workers who literally can’t leave for better-paying jobs. Disposable people who go home after three years or six years — just when they start getting expensive.
...
And if you think that we are only caring about American workers, which we should care about, and not caring about the foreign workers under this program, go to this link and watch this report, where an Indian worker also talks how he's being abused by this program too, and how they get screwed by the rich just like we do. So only the rich benefit from this program. AGAIN, WHY does Hillary support this CRAP that only supports the rich, and her supporters calling supporting a program that exploits workers around the worker for the rich "liberal"?!!!
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Show me where Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama support fraudently using the H1B visa program.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)As the person who CREATED this program said if you read my post, we should be moving back to just trying to streamline green cards instead of this program having all of these different loopholes that has let it be scammed for so many years. When you have a corrupt government enabled by big money buying off politicians who are cozy to corporate entities like Wall Street, you just know that there is going to be fraud ALL OF THE TIME in this program.
Hillary clinton supported expanding this adamantly in 2008, if you've read any of the posts here as she is quoted here in the last election. With about a 20 year history of fraud in that program at that point, you'd think that Hillary would EITHER have the intelligence to see this fraud and not want it, or have the ethics to note that this fraudulent behavior is only serving the wealthy, which some argue she is there to help support.
I would challenge those who say this program has EVER functioned effectively to be more of what it was originally set up for versus the abused fashion that has it being used more to exploit cheap "indentured servant" labor.
And as this DKOS article and others have noted, Hillary Clinton in addition to along with her husband supporting free trade bills in the past like NAFTA, were also beholden to a lot of campaign contributions from Indian companies that profiteer from H-1B program exploitation, which many of us conclude explains her "strong support" for these programs not the FABRICATED MYTH that this program helps the American work force.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/06/476588/-Beyond-NAFTA-Misrepresentations-Hillary-and-those-H-1b-Visas
Quoting the Washington Post there:
When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."
Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."
The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
Despite aggressive courtship by Democratic candidates, major unions such as the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union have withheld their endorsements as they scrutinize the candidates' records and solicit views on a variety of issues.
...
If the fraud can't be taken out of such a program in its over 20 years of existence which has been pretty persistent throughout its history, then legislators that support American workers, like the congressman I noted that originally put it in to law said, we should END this program and find other means that are less fraught with fraud and work more for works worldwide than the wealthy the way these guest worker programs do. Congress has had over 20 years to fix it, and it is obvious that big money won't let them do it. So it should be SHUT DOWN and kept out of any immigration bill where possible, so that far more of us can help work hard the next time a real good and CLEAN bill that doesn't have any NON-Immigration garbage like these TEMPORARY "guest worker" programs in it, to get it to pass, and help with the so many immigration problems we have now, without supporting legislation that will continue to destroy our own lives.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Hillary is not in favor of fraud. This is just another baseless attack on her. What else is new?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)This fraud has been known for a long time. They switch the goalposts by changing some words, but then leave other words that get abused elsewhere. Whether this is due to complicit stealthy manipulation of the legislative process, or incompetence in writing a bill that can't get abused by fraud, the bottom line is that one shouldn't be pushing it the way it has been pushed in the past.
And Hillary Clinton hasn't noted in that speech of hers ANY acknowledgement of the existing fraud in this program, and just echoes the talking points of the Indian staffing firms and others that want to grow this exploitation program. If she wants us to view her as a credible entity in this area, she should STOP taking money from these Indian staffing firms, and either propose in detail how she would support fixing the fraud in this program, or say that it should be taken down because of the fraud, as the author of the program says we should do. Supporting it the way she does in the youtube looks more like she just supports the stealthy efforts over the last few decades to continue the fraud that has been going on.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You go ahead and take the Ted Cruz line on this. I will stick with supporting the Dem position.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or can point to any period where that fraud has been cleaned up. We're talking about a lot of specifics on how the program has been run, and frankly I don't have time to go through a lot of that minutia when I've got to get back to finding a job myself now again (whether it be a contractor "place holder job" that will likely get killed when TPP passes or another expansion of the H-1B quota gets passed in another bill, or something else).
whathehell
(29,067 posts)American workers are being replaced by H1-B Visa holders hired for less money -- In some cases being forced to train their "replacements" before they go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Gmak
(88 posts)Wish I had your skills in defending Bernie
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Sabrina, you might also have noted that in 2013, large banks (including foreign ones...CIBC and TD to name the Canadian ones) paid her 3.5 million dollars for a few hours of speeches...they PAID her for her pearls of wisdom...and what did they expect in return?...for the 1%er to carry water for them...the Canadian banks, for her support of Keystone XL...Quite simple, isn't it?..
Love your posts...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Wall St money. It is simply ridiculous to claim that they are not influenced by it. No one is going to believe that. Re Keystone, credit goes to all those activists, orgs and to Pope Francis and Benrie who have emphasized the threat of Climate Change, which if the Pope is calling it a 'sin to not protect this planet' means he has been briefed on just how bad it really is.
Obama no doubt has been similarly briefed, airc, the Pentagon back in 2004 had Climate Change listed as the biggest threat to our security. NOT OBL!
Thanks for your comment, I'm glad Obama finally came around on Keystone. He gets credit for that.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to Logical (Reply #71)
Post removed
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I want them gone but they are currently, unfortunately, legal.
The rest of the stuff, yeah, I do.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)A bunch of crappy stuff is legal. You certainly set a low bar but it's your bar. Lay it on any floor you like. I'll hold mine a bit higher, thank you.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Thanks for equating problems of regular people to super pacs by and for the rich.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She's about big money and big power.
She spins like a Weathervane and is a Shape Shifter.
No thanks.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I have a group of people who all support Bernie enthusiastically yet we feel what we want or what we say isn't of any value to those in power.
I'm truly DISGUSTED by our very own Democratic Party and especially Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who we feel will do anything to shut us out! How can this be called Democratic??
It's sickening!
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Bankruptcy Reform Act in every debate. It shows exactly whose side she's really on, and she can't spin it away, though I'm sure she try.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I assume that is why he doesn't. 
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)your world.
It isn't in most otherpeople's.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it up?? 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sincerely.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Apparently that was the first she'd heard of quid pro quo.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Warren video. And was sincere in wanting to stop it, she seemed to get what it would do to poor and working class people.
So what happened to her? Money? Can money cause someone to go so far from their own principles? Or is it something else? Do they bring people into a room somewhere and tell them 'this is the way things are' and if you 'don't cooperate' you will get nowhere'??
Bernie seems to be doing okay without Wall St. Why couldn't she and ALL Democrats, making it an issue against Republicans? I used to WISH someone would do what Bernie is doing, and now he is and it's a reason why I feel an obligation to support him.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)turned on them. As for why she did it - I think, if you have principles in the first place, you can't be bought no matter what. And I don't think she does have any and that proved it right off the bat.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)being seen as right on issues that would matter to those she knew she would be asking to vote for her one day, the Left.
Because you are right, you don't change your core values like that. Nor as often as she has.
Segami
(14,923 posts)that she is a habitual liar.....and no needs to debate that issue as history has shown it to be true.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Never been a fan of the Clintons.
That being said, I trust very few politicans.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Bingo!!! Hell, I've been listening to Sen. Sanders since he went from mayor to Rep but I didn't "trust" him until he made Senator. It wasn't because he was elected to the Senate but because of his consistency all through those years. He walks his talk. By the way, it would take the smallest whiff of shenanigans for him to lose my trust.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)record of consistency, I would be very wary of him right now. Because often the better they sound, the more they are conning us.
But in his case we do have the record, can't get one much longer or more consistent that his.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Anything beyond that is piling on
floriduck
(2,262 posts)If the other side had more people like you, we might have to do some work protecting Bernie. But if they were really like you, they'd be on this side.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people on his side, he's going to need them as the attacks will get much worse before the end of all this! Thanks for your nice comment
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts) billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Her supporters are horrific here on DU...They will flag you for just using adjectives. I pointed out her policies are exactly Neocon and to remember Tony Blair was a liberal...she is our Tony Blair. Too bad Clintonites whine all the time and try to censor anything they dont like being pointed out. They make me nauseous. They are as big a threat to change an many republicans.
EEO
(1,620 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)I do not trust Sanders to be viable in a general election and not to blow his chances with the socialist label. I keep asking for someone to explain how Sanders is viable in a general election. Unless the Sanders campaign can answer the question or address the concerns that he will not be competitive in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars, then your concerns really do not matter to me.
TBF
(32,056 posts)+2
Bernie can beat him. If you look up Hillary they estimate that she can also beat him by +1, but then we give up all the economic advantages Bernie can give us (willingness to tax rich folks to start with). If they can both beat Jeb!, and Bernie by a slightly larger margin, then why do you think he would blow it?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_sanders-5563.html
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)It will most likely be Rubio or Cruz.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wants Hillary in the GE because she's 'going to be much easier to beat than Sanders'. Why anyone thinks Hillary can win the GE when she has practically ZERO crossover appeal is beyond me. All she has is part of the Dem base which itself is only one third of the electorate right now, having shrunk by 10% since 2008.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine
“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.
President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.
I would love to see someone explain how Sanders would be viable because the explanations that I have seen so far have been sad and weak.
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)It is more a war of words than anything else. And the Hillary supporters are throwing any emotional, non-sequitur they can find.
Many of us supporting Bernie think of him in this manner:
She won't stand up for anybody. That's why I'm not voting for her.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Again, I like Sanders but I do not think that he can win in a general election fight where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may be spending another billion dollars.
I am not the only one who feels this way. Predictwise has Sanders with a 5% chance of being the Democratic nominee http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Sanders won't play pattycake with the Republicans like he does with Hillary.
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)How can you refute that Clinton is one of the most hated candidates in recent history?
How can you refute that people won't line up in droves to keep Clinton from taking their guns away as she basically has threatened to do?
How can you refute that as there is a vast right wing conspiracy against her which will do everything to kill her candidacy and her Presidency.
How can you refute that Sanders outperformed Clinton in his election bids when comparing to the Democratic vote in their respective states which I have demonstrated previously.
How can you refute that most polls show Sanders doing as well as or better than Clinton in matchups vs the Republicans?
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)Romney and Karl Rove ignore the polling in 2012 and that did not work for them. Right now the polls do not support your claims
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Gothmog
(145,176 posts)I enjoy reading the cross tabs at most major polls and have seen no support for this claim
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Wall Street, Big Banking, Military Industrial Complex - all those multi-million dollar special interest funders of HRC, BC, and of course the Clinton Foundation full well recognize that the underlying issue, which allows them to control politicians like puppets, is the Citizens United precedent.
It is the basic bedrock upon which they rest their control of all levels of elected political offices. It is the sine qua non, i.e., the "without which there is nothing" fact of life for them.
Who does not recognize that corporate/Wall Street donations/quid pro quos will come home to roost with a profiteering vengeance on any presidential candidate who has accepted tens of millions of dollars from them in a combination of campaign donations, personal payments for speeches to said candidate and spouse, and "gifts" to said candidate's family "non-profit" organization?
Nowhere is this more vital to said corporate interests than in appointments to the Supreme Court.
Here's the script, kiddos!
(Corporate input/expectations on Supreme Court appointments)
"Here's the deal. Your supreme court nominations can be soft on social issues. We don't give a fuck if gays marry or women can get abortions. Makes no difference to our profiteering. But by god they better leave Citizens United in place and not approve prosecution of war crimes."
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)President Obama is strongly against Super Pacs and Citizens United but had to use a super pac to keep things close in 2012. Sanders is not viable under todays rules and I am not comfortable supporting in the primary process a candidate who has no chance of winning in the general election
antigop
(12,778 posts)Gothmog
(145,176 posts)BTW, Sanders set a new low on Predictwise. Sanders has a 5% chance of being the Democratic nominee http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)
Laser102
(816 posts)I really like his domestic plans but his foreign policy experience is woefully lacking. Americans will look for the person who will keep us safe. Hillary will be our nominee. Not that I'm not happy about that.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be in the mess re all these Wars For Profit we are engaged in that are the cause of all these attacks.
And people realize this now more than ever. Enough with the killing of people in these countries.
No more war mongerers in the WH, those old policies are destroying this country.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)who vote for Sanders, NOT the Republican candidate, because they KNOW him
to be a man of his word, who walks his talk, etc. and there's a growing number
of GOP voters who are completely turned off by the Clown Car Crazies.
That large of a cross-over vote is almost unheard of, yet Sanders achieves that
regularly. Bernie will also get TONS of Independents, new registrants, Greens,
etc. that HATE Hillary and wouldn't vote for her if you paid them to.
Bernie has a better chance in the GE than he does in the Primary IMHO.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)These are not considered to be good odds http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You just don't like our answers.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)if you read the last three paragraphs of this article, Sanders campaign manager does not outline a path to the nomination but a path to be a "serious" candidate. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html
Sanders’s outsider campaign has been likened to Jesse Jackson’s insurgent campaign in 1988—it wasn’t until the Wisconsin primary in April that Michael Dukakis defeated Jackson. But Devine thinks the more apt analogy to today’s politics is 1984 when the combination of Gary Hart’s insurgency and Jackson’s coalition of minority voters together almost beat Walter Mondale. “Jackson never received support from the institutional party, but he demanded respect. If we register, as Jesse Jackson did, millions of people, that would be a huge lift for the party in Senate races.” And for whichever Democrat reaches the magic number of delegates next year to secure the nomination.
The idea that Sanders is good for the Democratic Party is a hard lesson for Clinton to appreciate in the heat of battle. But he’s got voters fired up and ready to go, and Democrats need that energy.
The apparent goal of this campaign is not for Sanders to be the nominee but to be considered a serious candidate who might almost beat Hillary Clinton. By that standard, Sanders is doing okay but no one not even Sanders' own campaign manager thinks that Sanders will be the Democratic nominee.
This article is silent on what Sanders intend to do in a general election contest in that it appears that Sanders campaign manager does not expect that Sanders will be the nominee.
Sanders' own campaign manager defines success as being taken seriously but not as winning the nomination
retrowire
(10,345 posts)I cringe when I hear her say "God given potential".
Why are you treating everyone as if they believe in a god? We're Americans. And not all Americans are religious.
Please, talk to us like you understand who the hell we are.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Ya'll need some new stuff.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)failed 'stuff' that has so adversely affected so many human beings. Bernie is the future, the old ways have totally failed the world, not just this country, they got away with the greed and corruption for several decades now, it's old, it's devastating to people everywhere, and not we need some 'new stuff'. Bernie will make that happen.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I don't trust a candidate who brags about her experience, but mostly she's experienced at being wrong.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)
I began my awareness and distrust of the Clinton around 1998. And then in 2000 Bill signs the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Frankly, Obama is no better. Do we want a real Democrat? Or another corporate politician beholden to Wall Street? We can do better.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about politics and policies especially, caught up in trying to defend them mostly from the far Right so didn't notice the policies they were pushing through To the point that when I first was told about stuff like the Welfare Bill I didn't believe it, had to see it for myself.
So I don't fault people who are still in that state of ignorance. Ignorance can be cured, I am now cured thankfully. It happened the night of the Iraq Vote and it's been downhill all the way since them.
We do not need any more war hawks in the WH. It's why I supported Obama against her in 2008 also.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Gmak
(88 posts)not because he has the need for power that Hillary apparently has. After she and Bill's 8 years in the most powerful job in the world, did she content herself with using her celebrity to do good works, or teach, or volunteer, as Jimmy and Rosalind Carter did? No, she did just what I expected of her, starting the climb to get herself into the White House, not as a spouse, but as the POTUS. Quite frankly, anyone who wants this job, this badly and is willing to take the abuse, and devote the energy that she has to it, is too much in love with power and shouldn't be trusted with it, in my opinion.
merrily
(45,251 posts)ideas from Senators Sanders and Warren. I don't believe she is going to fight her hardest to implement them--and with a Republican Congress, that is going to be some fight. I believe it will be more convenient to say, Oh, well, the Republicans thwarted me. I believe Sanders would all but kill himself trying, which is all anyone can expect.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as he always has and won't go to the bargaining table offering everything they want as a starting point. He knows how to bargain. Ask for MORE than you want, then let them bargain you down to what you actually want.
He won't be reaching across the aisle to shake hands with the devil, that's for sure or using Repubs as an excuse not to get things done.
He will CALL THEM OUT PUBLICLY which seems to be something most of our Dems are afraid to do, and thereby get the public on their case, millions of us. Who will work to kick them out if they try to obstruct the business of the people.
merrily
(45,251 posts)in that respect than Hillary, who recently called Republicans the enemy of which she is most proud.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)She bought the rights to the phrase, "Most Qualified To Be President" so nobody else can use it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Thanks sabrina, great post.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You do that well... You've been a good student of history like many here are trying to be.
I remember that Bill Moyers interview with Warren. It is quite revealing. The reason I think it's NECESSARY to see again is because it connects to the very issues we as voters have been sick and tired of seeing - the INTENTION to do well, usurped by the the money connection to power. I still have hope for a woman to become president. If that woman had half the integrity of Elizabeth Warren, she would get more support from me than Hillary Clinton.
Warren has managed to place the ultimate goal of doing good over getting in power. It's not an easy goal. I can tell you this as someone who didn't fall for this trick in local office. It ultimately makes you choose truth over power. The reason some people like succumb to power over truth is that they keep making excuses for the path they ultimately take on the way to the power they see as more important.
We can't play those games anymore.
MMM
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Yes, that's what struck me about that Warren interview. But someone pointed out to me that maybe I was giving Hillary too much credit for her initial efforts re the Bankruptcy Bill. That at that time she was hoping to further her own political career and believed she needed the 'left' to do so. I am not yet, I think, that cynical and would like to believe she actually did see the harm that bill would cause to ordinary people. But who knows, as someone said today, 'your core values don't change that drastically unless they never were 'core values'.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Hillary Clinton's Flip-Flops
32 minutes of video on her flip flips - many that are totally indefensible - have her dead to rights
Meet The Press
http://therightscoop.com/meet-the-press-forces-hillary-clinton-to-watch-video-of-all-her-political-flip-flops/
Some flip flops include
NAFTA
gay marriage,
immigration,
gun control,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact,
mass incarceration
the Iraq War,
Keystone XL
Charter Schools
Bankruptcy legislation
etc
Hillary Clinton: A Lying Compilation
A Pattern Of Hillary Clinton Lies
More of terrible moments that shake your trust in her.
And she added a doozy this week in the debate
Hillary Clinton Was A Top Recipient Of Wall Street Cash Before 9/11 Attacks
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-was-top-recipient-wall-street-cash-911-attacks-2185516
I suspect the GOP will settle on Rubio - he's going to be the young candidate who has little baggage, represents change and doesn't represent old Washington like Hillary does and the GOP will have mounds of material to choose from to back that up. Voters are sick of what has gone on in Washington - they'll take a chance on a young unproven guy over the known, older, arguably dishonest/unreliable and worn Washington politician (Hillary). That is my fear.
We saw them take BS and swiftboat Kerry. We've seen the lengths they'll go to with Birth Certificates and Death Panels. This time around, they don't have to make up much stuff to knock her back on her heels and keep her there during the weeks leading up to the general election.
The Clintons have done a lot of good for the country. In spite of the above, I'd take Hillary over any GOP candidate in a heartbeat because what she represents is a heck of a lot better than what the GOP offer in policy. But not all Americans would. To secure the progress made during Obama's presidency and to sustain a path to a Dem majority on the Supreme Court, a Dem president is needed and essential.
If Hillary is the Dem candidate, we've got a really tough fight after the GOP do their hit job on her. I'm not sure her candidacy can survive it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans in the polls right now. And it's not Hillary. She has very little cross over appeal. Benrie otoh, has a lot of cross over voters, not to mention we have been signing up NON Voters, disgusted with the entire political system, who are now energized by Bernie. She cannot get those voters, establishment politics is WHY they have opted out of the system.
Rubio? I don't think so. The establishment will BUY it for Bush. That's who they want and that's who they will get.
And the public is sick and tired of it all. Which is why Sanders is doing so well, he is DIFFERENT. He tells the truth about Wall St, about the rigged system. He doesn't take their money.
But DO the Dems care about winning? That's a good question at this point.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)bogus as it was, starting with cutting her budget to protect diplomats on through, they hurt her in the polls
and now, they're laying in the weeds until the General Election with no spending limits and the big money boys looking to buy the White House. I fear these folks are going to rip her political throat out with all this baggage.
They can tag Bernie as a socialist and try to frighten folks that way but I think Bernie is so genuine, he will disarm that. Bernie is a little too far to the left for the general election. If he can hold his nose and move a couple of goal posts closer to the center, I think he's got a better chance and is less vulnerable to GOP attack. His candidacy will ring true because he's sincere - he really believes in the policies he's promoting and so do his supporters. He could be attacked for being light on foreign policy but none of the GOP candidates have materially more experience there.
Hillary hasn't faced a tough electorate. In NY, she was playing to a strong Democrat base in her run for Senator. In the '08 primary, she was largely preaching to the choir .. and lost a gigantic lead to Obama. Part of the reason she lost is in my post above.
I really want one or the other of them - a Democrat to win. I'm worried about Hillary's chances.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)She is only popular in the NorthEastern section of the country, and not very popular there, at all.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)California, Oregon & Washington
But she's even currently behind in Minnesota and in a bunch of the battleground states (CO, FL, IA, NC, OH) to GOP candidates and the GOP haven't begun carpet bombing big bucks into their nasty ads to make sure everyone sees the material above on lying and flip-flopping, etc. And some of the trouble we have there is it isn't swiftboating BS - we can't defend it because there's some irrefutable truth behind it. Going into this, everybody knew Clinton had a ceiling - a bunch of people don't like her going back to the 90s. All the GOP have to do is knock her down a few more notches to finish her off and that isn't too hard because she comes with volumes of material to do it with.
Bush, Trump and Carson have been tossed out as candidate bones for the media to chomp on. When the media have satisfied some of their appetite, Rubio steps forward already largely vetted:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-endless-vetting-of-marco-rubio#.jgELwdZYwd
He's answered the credit card stuff. So it's unlikely we'll be able to counter bash their candidate nearly as much.
Now Bernie, he's different. He's an honest candidate. He doesn't flip-flop or have to lie because he believes what he's saying and been very steady for years. Not many people hate Bernie - he's a pretty nice guy. And like Obama in 2008, he's going into this not having reached his ceiling - he's got some potential upside to come with the public who do not know him nearly as well. Because he's been an independent, he's been arguably at some arms length in Washington and his donations prove nobody owns him. I find that easier to get behind and fight for rather than a political version of a stinking rich, sold out, lying, flip-flopping Nurse Ratched.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Some of it has to do with this:
https://twitter.com/mmflint
Michael Moore ?@MMFlint Nov 14
Hillary keeps sending me messages thru the TV machine: "Michael, don't vote for me...don't vote for me...don't vote for me" Stop! #DemDebate
I've had a similar reaction since 2007-8
Nurse Rached "has also become a popular metaphor for the corrupting influence of power and authority in bureaucracies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Ratched
And Nurse Rached was there to help McMurphy and when he bucked her (arguably silly/too rigid/not fun) rules, she kind of hypocritically had him lobotomized.
On Saturday, during the debate, Bernie brought up Wall Street donations.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-sanders-exchange-over-campaign-finance-turns-personal
Clinton, a former New York senator, said she had worked to rebuild Wall Street in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks and pointedly accused Sanders of undermining her character.
“He has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity,” Clinton said, after Sanders said financial institutions “know what they’re going to get” in exchange for their campaign contributions.
So Clinton complains about Sanders impugning her integrity, does a tasteless Giuliani invoking 9/11 but in the same breath:
Hillary was a Wall Street donor darling before 9/11, too
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/surprise-hillary-was-a-wall-street-donor-darling-before-911-too/
she hypocritically lied to the nation ... and me while doing so.
If her supporters find the Nurse Rached crack tough to take, well I find her lying hypocrisy tough to take. It's a bit insulting. She deserves to be slapped down for that.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)I also trust her to reliably support the Washington conventional wisdom of think tanks, lobbyists and establishment pundits just as she always has done.
I have full confidence representatives of bank bailouts, war and economic equality will have a seat at the table at all times.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)and it makes me cringe when I think about the graft it would bring.
I believe Bernie will appoint people who genuinely care about serving the people's needs.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)cabinets. Bernie I'm sure won't be appointing any Wall St CEOs or old Bush loyalists, like Clapper or Gates or any Monsanto execs.
Hillary, I shudder to think of who she will have in her cabinet.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)but I didn't need to read any further then the first.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and I remember it well. My right wing adverseries used her vote to bludgeon liberals with. It was a sense of betrayal, since we had fought so hard to defend the Clintons, like nothing I had experienced before. My only consolation was the photos of Bush/Clinton which I posted for my Right Wing adversaries, knowing they were in shock also, feeling the same sense of betrayal as the saw THEIR hero shmoozing with the 'enemy' or so they had thought. It was small comfort though airc, but it was something!
vadermike
(1,415 posts)So the Bernie people won't vote for Hillary and the Hillary people won't vote for Bernie ,,, I would vote for either over any repug... while we fight.. there is a real possibility that the GOP will take the WH , we must Unite next year defeat them otherwise hello GOP for at least a decade if not more complete control.. yeah , think about that nightmare for a minute.. it makes what we are fighting about here meaningless IMO
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who we don't really want, because the other guys are worse'. No we don't. We have to change this rigged system and this is what we are doing.
Do you understand that when you TELL the oligarchs 'well, if we can't the BEST possible representative of the people, we will give in and take YOUR choice because the 'other guys are worse' they LOVE YOU for that? They are laughing at us. And they make sure we DON'T get the Best candidate for the people by using all that Corporate money to try to destroy ANYONE who looks like they won't be the fox in the henhouse protecting THEIR interests?
Right now is when the people get to decide. I know what my decision is. And if the Dem party leadership wants to win, that is who THEY will get behind also.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)for many election cycles now. Is it too much for us to ask them to move our direction for once? We finally have a candidate that actually holds the positions they pretend to support - now is the time to show that they aren't just pretending.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)candidate who won't appease the far right when it comes to policies that affect the majority of Americans and we are now seeing clearly that the leadership of OUR party is doing everything they can to try to stop him. It isn't working, it won't work, but we have learned a valuable fact, our party's leadership doesn't represent the people.
We needed to know that!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"Give us subpoena power!" was the tough-talk before the election, when they needed our votes. "Impeachment is off the table!" was our reward.
I feel it would be an exercise in redundancy to point out the many ways Obama sold us out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)convinced me something had gone terribly wrong. And still we helped them win it all and then were told to 'stf up' because our ideas were 'retarded'. I guess they are so out of touch with the people now, they truly are puzzled that their old methods are not working anymore. They seem to think we forgot all that 'stuff'. Which in a way is good for US.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That's why I don't trust Hillary!!!
She's a warmonger.
marym625
(17,997 posts)K&R!
Great post, Sabrina
Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Her support of TPP and similar trade bills will kill your kids college and career opportunities. End of discussion.
Why?
Because the jobs will be in China or Mexico. I can tell you from living in China for almost 5 years is no picnic either.
Don't vote against your children's future. Give them hope for an awsome college education.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)But Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s war in Iraq when she was in the US Senate. This is a vote that she now regards as a “mistake.” A mistake, it would seem, is forgetting about dinner and burning the pot roast. Advocating for a war that killed one million people and created one of the most ruthless terror organizations in history is something a bit more than a mistake.
The war in Iraq also helped destabilize Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq formed after the arrival of the US in 2003 and moved over to Syria after the Arab Spring uprising against Bashar al-Assad in 2011. In the absence of functioning states in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has flourished.
In fact, in 2012 Clinton sided with the head of the CIA, Leon Panetta, arguing that the US should go to war in Syria to remove Assad. This would have transformed Syria into an even greater mess than it is now.
Mrs. Clinton backed arming rebels in Syria early on, and continues to back the idea. She holds this position even though arming the rebels has only added to Syria’s bloodbath and has most benefitted radical Islamic groups in Syria.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton’s hawkish positions on Iraq and Syria are far from her only ones. As secretary of state she was a very strong advocate of the NATO war in Libya. The air strikes began with the establishment of a “no fly zone,” but they quickly transformed into assisting with the removal of Muammar al-Qaddafi.
In the aftermath of the air strikes, Libya has become a country in complete chaos. As in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has stepped in to fill the void. In February, ISIS released a video of the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You have to WALK THE WALK in this grand conversation of world hegemony versus world peace. It costs more integrity to achieve the second, and you've GOT TO walk that whole distance, not pound your chest only to say later, "that was a mistake".
Unfortunately, every one of HRC's actions after the 1st Clinton in the WH opening the door to money buying political appointments, means Katie can't bar the door with that war hawk platform of hers.
Sometimes strength is having foresight. I learned who has that foresight, and it's NOT her.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)I'm in a deeply blue state so my vote is pretty much inconsequential in a general election.
Javaman
(62,521 posts)if she really thought she could win, she would have shunned big money and super-pacs and gone toe to toe with Bernie.
she would never make it without the wall street money.
just reality.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)different country over the past few decades. Congress would look a lot different also. Which is why this has become one of the most important issues in this campaign
Bernie has managed to be a real challenge to the Corp funded and chosen candidates, starting out with practically zero name recognition and no Corporate money.
His very presence in this campaign makes the lie that 'they have to take that money in order to compete' so obvious.
If all Dems refused it and joined Bernie in attacking those who do, the Repubs would be on the defensive throughout the whole campaign trying to explain their huge donations to a population where a majority view that money as one of the main issues to be dealt with.
But they won't. Because so few of them are in it for the people.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)As much as I've tried, I just can't trust Hillary, mainly due to the nauseating way she constantly plays the triagilation games and Shape-shifts her positions...to me she has a total lack of true convictions.
Instead of standing up for any sort of strongly held democratic principles, she's been very careful to not take strong positions on certain issues (kxl for example) or say anything that might damage her politically, particularly for her life long quest to become the "first woman president"...it really is all about her, anyway.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)everything, except Iraq. Her Iraq vote and subsequent manifest utter lack of remorse is, let us say, the showstopper. Its almost as if the lives of little people like us and the Iraqi civilians don't even meter to her and her coterie.
As was said about Lady MacBeth, HRC 'lacks the milk of human kindness.'
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)You shouldn't trust any politician including Bernie. All that matters is Nov. 2016. Don't you wonder why the repubs want Bernie to win the Dem nomination? You should.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)
nolabels
(13,133 posts)
Thank you for all you do sabrina 1, we would all be a darker place without you
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)STOP MAKING SENSE!!!
Excellent points!
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)People have added some more reasons not to support Hillary in the thread also btw.
I agree with you obviously. I believe we are at a point now where it's Corporations V The People. Those who want the establishment candidate obviously are okay with handing this country over to Corporations.
That is not what the people want, according to every poll taken re what issues are most important to them.
But the power of the Corporate world, the takeover of the Media etc, is so great that what the people want isn't important anymore.
Bernie Sanders realized this and stepped forward in what might be our last chance to defeat those powerful Corps and we owe him a huge debt of gratitude for doing so. He most likely knew how nasty it would get should it look like the people might be willing to choose someone who actually represents them.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)K&R
Gman
(24,780 posts)snort
(2,334 posts)My only reaction to the wealthy lecturing on wages is full blown righteous pissed off anger. Especially within the confines of a system created by those who already have. It is frustrating that the masses have the power to change this overnight but cannot organize.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)especially on foreign policy.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to a point where, when she is the nominee as is likely, you won't be able to support the Democratic candidate.
There are a few posters who say they like both, just prefer Bernie. But are not working themselves into such a state that they'll hate the eventual nominee.
