15 Fundamental DIFFERENCES Between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton

[Segami]

Over at Huffington Post, political writer Brian Hanley contrasts the fundamental differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I often hear people stating that there is little difference between the two major democratic candidates. That’s not true. There are vast differences in policy between the two candidates. Brian Hanley has compiled a list of fifteen major differences which he is sharing. I don’t think he would mind my passing them along to you as he is obviously ‘feeling the bern’

15 Fundamental Differences Between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton


1. Sanders has served as an elected official for over 34 years. Clinton has not.

2. Sanders has supported gay rights since 40 years ago. Clinton has not.

3. Sanders wants to end the prohibition of marijuana. Clinton does not.

4. Sanders wants to end the death penalty. Clinton does not.

5. Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Clinton does not.

6. Sanders wants to break up the biggest banks. Clinton does not.

7. Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout. Clinton did not.

8. Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not.

9. Sanders refuses to accept money from super PACs. Clinton does not.

10. Sanders supports a single-payer healthcare system. Clinton does not.

11. Sanders refrains from waging personal attacks for political gains. Clinton does not.

12. Sanders considers climate change our nation's biggest threat. Clinton does not.

13. Sanders opposed the Keystone XL Pipeline since day one. Clinton did not.

14. Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Clinton did not.

15. Sanders voted against the war in Iraq. Clinton did not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/15-fundamental-difference_b_8845540.html

I will also add the differences in their support of the TPP. Bernie has lead the opposition to the TPP, while Hillary has been a major supporter until just a couple of months ago.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/24/1463322/-15-Fundamental-Differences-Between-Bernie-Sanders-and-Hillary-Clinton



ps- Print this cheat list and keep it around your dinner table throughout this Festive week to discuss with your republican relatives.....lol!

[JackInGreen]

1. I want to know where she stands on the omnibus

As back loaded as it is with bullshit.

[rhett o rick]

62. Don't forget fracking and college student debts. They differ on that also. nm

[nxylas]

86. She doesn't stand on the omnibus

She has a chauffeur-driven car. Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your server.

[Android3.14]

2. Cue The Swarm

Wouldn't it be nice, just once, if an HRC supporter actually took responsibility and said they support Clinton because they liked the Iraq War, love corporate control of the republic, think the environmental disaster of the Keystone Pipeline is worth the risk and that people should earn less than a living wage?

A little honesty would be nice for once.

[Matariki]

17. +1

[JDPriestly]

46. So true. Instead of responses with substance arguing in favor of Hillary's views on the issues,

we just get little snarky posts from her supporters.

I sometimes wonder why they like her. They almost never say.

I think I have read one intelligent, well thought through post from a Hillary supporter in all this primary season. Only one.

The rest were just ridiculous and without substance.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

64. It reminds me of the reactionaries that only root, root, root for the home team ...

... regardless of their position. They just can't stand to be wrong.

[zentrum]

65. Oh Man—you said it!

[Katashi_itto]

3. K&R! Down with 3rd Way.

[awake]

4. Still on the fence but this is making me lean Bernie's way

Thanks for posting this I would like to see what a HRC supporter has to say as to what her advantages are.
It would be nice if we can keep this thread nice and kind to each side

[Motown_Johnny]

5. #2 needs to be edited

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

^snip^

CIVIL LIBERTIES

Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Letter from 1970s shows Sanders was way ahead of this curve.

[Segami]

6. Done. Thanks Motown_Johnny

[Motown_Johnny]

7. Oh no, thank you for posting this.

and have a Merry Christmas!

[Segami]

8. Same to you....Cheers!

[JEB]

9. K&R&bookmark

[peacebird]

10. 16. Sanders is honest. "We came, we saw, he died" is not. (Dodging sniper fire?)

[JDPriestly]

50. The mistakes that Hillary and Obama made in their policies in Syria, Libya and with their

relationships with Iraq and Turkey are going to make Hillary unelectable.

Seymour Hersh has explained this.

Remember the word "Benghazi." According to Hersh we were shipping arms to Syrian rebels, arms that made their way into the hands of the extremists from Benghazi.

The story makes sense and it could destroy Hillary's candidacy.

I read a lot of mystery books in my youth.

One of the things mystery writers do is set the stage so to speak so that you have a foreboding aboutt who did it. The Republicans have prepared a trap for Hillary with those Benghazi hearings.

And now the truth is starting to come out. We made a huge foreign policy blunder in the Middle East. It started with the Iraq War for which Hillary voted. It continued with our policy in Iraq and Syria as well as in Libya and our alliance with Turkey during Obama's administration.

The American people -- or at least enough of them to possibly, quite possibly turn the election away from a Hillary win -- will be incensed when they find out what happened.

Read the Seymour Hersh article.

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

It's long. The part I quote follows the discussion about the sarin gas. Just go on down the page.

‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

That's what the Benghazi fuss was about. And Hillary will be blamed. Petraeus is a Republican. He knows what it was about. The Republicans will use this against Hillary in 2016.

We cannot nominate Hillary., It will be political suicide for the Democratic Party.

[peacebird]

52. Oh my... That I had not read before. She is even more of a disaster than I imagined.

[JDPriestly]

54. Yes. I suspected this, but did not know the facts.

Politics is partly storytelling. Mythmaking.

The Republicans are awful on the substance, on the policy. Their ideas in that area are full of holes, hold no water.

But they are great storytellers.

So I knew that the whole Benghazi affair was part of the telling of a story. And I figured it had to have to do with the attempt to unseat Assad in Syria. I have no sympathy for Assad, but there had to be a reason for the Republicans' making such a fuss over Benghazi.

They wanted voters to remember that word, "Benghazi."

I did not know that Gaddhafi had weapons stores that would be valuable to some rebel groups in the Middle East. I did not know that the CIA had a sort of warehouse in Benghazi for weapons. I did not know about the shipping company that Hersh mentions and that the Libyan Ambassador met with before being killed. I did not know any of those details, but I asked myself why in the world the Turkish ambassador and our ambassador would be meeting in Benghazi rather than in Tripoli, the capitol of Libya. And now we know. I figured the answer to my question would be associated with the transfer of weapons to Syrian rebels and that those weapons had found their way to the bad guys. I figured more recently that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had something to do with it.

The sale of gold to Iran and in that respect the possible circumvention of our ban on business with Iran is news to me. I don't know quite how that fits the rest of the story, but it also makes our current government look questionable in my opinion.

And I'm pretty much a big Obama fan when it comes to foreign policy. But it appears to me that some serious mistakes have been made -- and the Benghazi deal was during Hillary's time at the State Department.

Petraeus and Hillary both left their positions. I never thought that Petraeus' exit was really about his affair. That affair was probably known to many for a long time. That was an excuse in my opinion to get rid of a fool whose policies had failed. Hillary -- she was harder to deal with.

Hillary is intellectually and in terms of her strategic abilities, not qualified to be president. What's more she is stuck on herself, thinks she is smarter than she is (because she always memorized well and got good grades in school and also knows the right people) but the Republican candidates are even less qualified.

The only guy out there with the humility to listen to the right people and to ask the right questions especially when it comes to foreign and economic policies is Bernie. It's not that he has all the answers but that I think he will seek out the right experts and ask those right questions. He doesn't think he knows it all, especially when it comes to military and foreign policy.

Bernie's idea of seeking help from Saudi Arabia and Qatar is good because they are supporting one of the sets of bad guys in Syria. If we could provide incentives and get them to stop supporting the bad guys, the Syrian rebels, the ones who are destroying historical sites and killing people who don't agree with them, they would become very weak and eventually disappear as such a disruptive force in that area.

Bernie's idea of working with Russia is good as long as we carefully watch to make sure that Russia is really working with us and not serving an agenda that is hostile to us. Russia would love to see Turkey weakened. That's my suspicion. And Turkey has harmed itself by supporting these cruel rebels in Syria.

But still, we need Turkey as an ally. Russia would like to have more influence in Turkey. So we have to be careful about how close our alliance might be with Russia.

Now that Greece is so weak and alienated to some extent from Western Europe, the entire area of Southern Eastern Europe to the southern border of Turkey could, as has the Middle East, experienced a lot of change -- not all of it good for the US. That is an important area in the world. That's Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and the countries that used to be Yugoslavia. That is the northern portion of the Eastern crescent of the Mediterranean. Those countries are important from a strategic point of view even though most Americans don't hardly know they exist.

Anyway that is my take on these matters.

Hillary is a very weak candidate for many reasons.

[Proserpina]

76. Bernie has an ethical compass to guide him that points to true democracy

Hillary has the weathervane.

Bernie knows how to make a decision, a GOOD decision, without having to endlessly poll and sample and check with Goldman Sachs.

We could do worse...and we have. But this time, why settle for less?

Bernies's the real thing.

[Enthusiast]

79. The most essential thing we could gain as a society is an ethical compass.

Bernie is our only answer.

[JDPriestly]

83. Right.

[JDPriestly]

82. I agree!

[Enthusiast]

78. Huge +1! You sure nailed this one, "Politics is partly storytelling. Mythmaking"

The storytelling has reached a high level.

[fasttense]

89. The RepubliCONS don't have a problem with turning consulates into drive thru arms movers

As long as some rich person is making money, moving arms while the American military stands guard over the transaction is just fine. I really doubt th RepubliCONS will go there.

It does however upset the Democratic base.

[BeanMusical]

75. She was named after Sir Edmund Hillary too.

[peacebird]

88. Egads, she actually DID claim that....

She's a pathological liar!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/nyregion/17hillary.html?_r=0

[CharlotteVale]

11. Bernie is on my side. Clinton is not.

[stillwaiting]

28. That's it. Bottom line. +1. nt

[mmonk]

12. Yeah, I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves

liberal or progressive can be against him so. Intellectually it makes no sense.

[Fuddnik]

14. It's emotion, not intellect.

[Bonhomme Richard]

22. Honestly I think it is fear of losing the general....

if he is the nominee.
I understand that but, in my mind, real change doesn't occur without risk.

[mmonk]

24. Truth. Change doesn't occur without risk.

We can be left with slow death or fast death by doing nothing but not advance.

[Old Codger]

72. Honestly

I really believe we stand a much better chance of losing the GE with her than with Bernie, in fact at this time I think Bernie or OM are our only real chance..she wil get trounced...

[TekGryphon]

38. Intellectually?

What about this list is intellectual? It's a string of one-sided talking points made for people who just started following politics this year to feel good about themselves and their pet candidate.

[mmonk]

39. Really?

So you are against the measures. You want to know what is not intellectual? Our current path on the status quo of corporate governance thinking it will improve the lives of average Americans. It's an ideology without a clue.

[arcane1]

51. You are welcome to refute them. And the poster has been here since 2008, not this year.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

74. Big words. Now back them, and do so with substance.

[Ned_Devine]

80. I signed up back in January of 2004

Although I lost my password somewhere between then and 2006, so I created this user name in January of 2006. But yeah, I've been here for a while, and a liberal progressive for a while longer.

[Divernan]

13. Thanks for this concise, powerful list.

You're a good man (or woman, whatever), Charlie Brown - I mean, Segami.

It's an honor to share the In-Support-of-Bernie boards with you!

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/ Have a Fun Festivus-with-the-Rest-of-us holiday - or whatever seasonal greeting is your preference.

I will be toasting to the 2016 election of President Sanders!

[Segami]

21. Oh thank you Divernan!

I am very touched by your kind words......let me also extend to you a most wonderful Christmas/Festive Holiday and I too, will be roasting and toasting the election of the future 45th President Of The United States, Bernie Sanders!

Thank you and cheers....

[stupidicus]

15. yep, and moral calculus indicates that her opposition to SP alone

makes it pretty much a no-brainer as to who should win if "issues" and positions on them are determinative.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Kicked, recommended and bookmarked.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[valerief]

19. K&R

[TIME TO PANIC]

20. The line in the sand couldn't be clearer.

VOTE BERNIE! The moral alternative.

[tokenlib]

23. I'd add Social Security expansion vs Third Way entitlement deform..

Hillary and her Third Way ties are a threat to everyone who will need Social Security expanded and not cut.

[Cal33]

25. If more seniors only knew this, more would switch over to Sanders' side. That's why DWS

is having as few primary debates as possible, and holding them on weekends and holidays.

The above is not only detrimental to Sanders winning the Democratic Primaries, it is also
extremely bad for the entire Democratic Party. DWS is actually also helping the Republicans
to win in the General Election, when Democrats get less exposure to the entire American
people. Does she care? Hardly. She is interested only in, what she thinks, will be profitable
for herself.

[TekGryphon]

26. This is like "Baby's First Politics"

I wonder why Hillary's "does not" positions aren't linked? Oh, right, because then the reader would understand Hillary does not actually oppose/support many of these things.

I'm glad my Facebook wall has Bernie and Hillary supporters capable of having intellectual discussions on the issues, because God knows I can't find it here on DU anymore.

[JDPriestly]

55. Please provide links to Hillary's positions if you think they are not properly represented.

[TekGryphon]

71. I got to #2 and I'm already smelling BS.

Bernie Sanders hasn't supported gay rights for 34 years. He opposed marriage equality and pushed for civil unions, the same as his Republican Senate challenger. When he opposed DOMA he said nothing about the dignity of gays, only speaking towards state's rights.

How the hell do you expect me to educate you on Hillary's history when you don't even know Bernie's history.

[navarth]

73. TekGryphon

If you have more than ad hominem you should provide it. The man courteously asked you to back up what you say. Whether or not you want to do that is your option.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Link to your proof that Bernie "opposed marriage equality" like Tarrant? Tia!

Oh and let me be the one to educate you, Hillary opposed it because she believed only straights should be allowed to get married:

[rhett o rick]

63. I have asked time and again for HRC supporters to debate any of these issues but they will not.

I would imagine that you'd have links yourself.

[farleftlib]

27. Now that's a progressive!

Wtg.

[Duval]

29. K&R.

[George II]

30. A rather selective and highly subjective group of "differences".

For some of those points, where Sanders presumably was for or against something "sooner", Clinton wasn't in a position to publicly express an opinion at the time. Doing something "before" someone else is no big deal.

As for #8. "Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not." , do you think it's fAIR and REASONABLE to say that Clinton didn't introduce legislation to overturn a Supreme Court Decision that was issued AFTER she had already left the Senate?

As for #11, that's not true (he has waged personal attacks) although he leaves most of that to his supporters.

Here are a few more to ponder:

Clinton has never lost a general election, Sanders has.

Clinton earned more votes in her very first election (3.7 million) than Sanders has earned in his entire political career.

Clinton has voted for gun control every chance she has, Sanders has not.

Clinton is in favor of repealing legislation that protects gun manufacturers, Sanders is not AND he voted for that legislation.

Clinton has been a DEMOCRAT for more than four decades, Sanders has not and he still doesn't consider himself a Democrat (although he's using the resources of the Democratic Party for "political gains&quot .



See how easy it is to counter such "lists"?

[farleftlib]

31. One more: Sanders respects the left wing of the Democratic Party

Clinton does not.

[George II]

34. Sanders has never respected ANY "wing" of the Democratic Party...

....until April when he realized he needed them. Here are a few of his most precious quotes:

"My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

"We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’ ”

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat,”

[farleftlib]

36. He doesn't need anything

He's honorably running as a Dem so as not to be a "spoiler" and throw the race to the republicans.

Those 15 points noted above in the OP are all liberal values, no matter what you or he calls them.

[TekGryphon]

37. You're right. They're points. Talking points.

A way for the segment of Bernie supporters who ignored what Bernie said, and fell into the trap of identity politics, to make themselves feel good.

For what it's worth, I genuinely do hope this kind of substance-less tripe makes you feel good. It certainly isn't going to get you voters.

[JDPriestly]

45. So . . . which of the points in the OP do you disagree with?

Which of Hillary's positions do you think are better?

Because I'm totally with Bernie on the issues.

And this election is about the issues.

Hillary's stances on the issues are weak.

Please explain in detail why you think her stances on the issues are better if that is what you think.

Personally, I think her stances on the issues are vague, uncertain and indefensible.

That's why we get so many responses from Hillary fans that have so little substance.

[George II]

60. Well, I pointed out a few that were questionable AND one that was absolutely...

...ridiculous - claiming that Clinton didn't introduce legislation to over turn Citizens United fully knowing that she was already out of the Senate for a year.

So, how do you feel about that one? I know the person who posted the OP probably was embarrassed since he hasn't addressed it.

So, with that and a few more, those "points" are pointless.

Which of the points in my post do you disagree with?

[JDPriestly]

66. Here are my responses:

As for #8. "Sanders introduced legislation to overturn Citizens United. Clinton did not." , do you think it's fAIR and REASONABLE to say that Clinton didn't introduce legislation to overturn a Supreme Court Decision that was issued AFTER she had already left the Senate?

Citizens United was decided, I believe, in response to a lawsuit filed by Hillary. But she has not stood really strongly in favor of the constitutional amendment required to change that decision. She is not weak on this issue, but Bernie is much stronger.

As for #11, that's not true (he has waged personal attacks) although he leaves most of that to his supporters.

Bernie has not waged personal attacks. He has defended Hillary. We voters have the responsibility for differentiating between the candidates. When we criticize a candidate, it is part of our job as voters. Bernie does not wage and has not waged personal attacks.

Here are a few more to ponder:

Clinton has never lost a general election, Sanders has.

Neither candidate has run in a general election. Sanders lost elections in the early years of his career. He was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt. 4 times. He has served in Congress since the very early 1990s. Hillary ran twice for the Senate and served one term plus a portion of a second term. In terms of election success, Bernie is by far the better candidate. He learned from his early failures. Hillary lost in 2008 in the primary -- lost big.

Clinton earned more votes in her very first election (3.7 million) than Sanders has earned in his entire political career.

Irrelevant. Bernie has won far more times, far more different elections and based on a much longer personal record of public service than has Hillary.

Clinton has voted for gun control every chance she has, Sanders has not.

Sanders did not vote for gun control measures that he believed were deficient. I agree with his view on gun control. I have family members who live in rural areas and hunt for food, for sport and to protect their properties.

Clinton is in favor of repealing legislation that protects gun manufacturers, Sanders is not AND he voted for that legislation.

Gun manufacturers are entitled to the same legal protections as other manufacturers in my view. I favor background checks although I have some difficulty with the idea of declining gun ownership based on mental health issues because many mental health issues should not disqualify people from being able to protect themselves in their homes and diagnoses can be wrong. Also, some people outgrow certain mental illnesses. I don't think that some of the most dangerous attitudes and mental problems are not easily or often diagnosed. So the refusal of a gun permit based on a mental health diagnosis may be quite useless. It may miss people like some of the right-wing terrorists and in an overbroad way include people who are harmless. Do you really think that a racist, a rabid racist should be allowed to have a gun while someone who is perhaps confused but not angry should not? I'm just not sure that will help much. Still I support gun licensing.

As for gun manufacturers, if there is something wrong with the gun or if it was manufactured so as not to meet basic safety regulations and standards, then the manufacturer should be liable. Otherwise not. That's the same as the law for all manufacturers although there are exceptions for certain manufacturers other than gun manufacturers. The purpose of a gun is to kill. We should not make gun manufacturers liable just because their product does what it is made to do. We should educate the public about the problems with guns and rely on their self-interest to cause them not to buy or have them unless they need them.

Clinton has been a DEMOCRAT for more than four decades, Sanders has not and he still doesn't consider himself a Democrat (although he's using the resources of the Democratic Party for "political gains&quot .

Irrelevant. Sanders has caucused with Democrats for years -- and voted with them. More troubling are the people who call themselves Democrats and belong to Democratic organizations but vote with Republicans. Lieberman was a prime example.

[JDPriestly]

57. Wrong. Quite simpy wrong.

Sanders has caucused with Democrats and voted with Democrats in Congress for many, many years, far longer than Hillary has served in any office.

Sorry, but that post is simply wrong.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, but when I look at how the DNC is handling this primary and at Hillary's stances on the issues, I have to agree that the Democratic Party management is pretty bankrupt when it comes to ideology. It's Hillary's bankrupt ideology that causes her to change her mind on so many really basic moral issues.

[George II]

59. Are you saying Sanders never said these things?

"My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

"We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’ ”

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat,”

[JDPriestly]

67. No. I'm saying that considering the corruption in the Democratic Party now, I really don't

care if he criticized it.

I am now, what with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's handling of the primary, the debate scheduling, the scarcity of debates, the scandal around her handling of the situation that arose when NGP Van released the databases with a bug in them, all that, make me strongly critical of the Democratic Party and agree with Sanders' comments about it.

Very sad. Very sad.

Looks like Wasserman-Schultz is dividing our party. I hope the division is not irreparable.

I have been very active in the Democratic Party locally when possible. I am very sad about what is happening.
I think Debbie Wasserman-Schultz needs to resign. We need completely new management at the DNC.

Hillary is a very bad candidate. When the allegations of Seymour Hersh come to be understood by Democrats and voters, Hillary supporters will understand that she is a very vulnerable candidate indeed.

[George II]

69. Those statements were made decades ago (the first back in 1986, 29 years ago!)

When he said that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was only 19 years old, so you can't blame his "ideology" on her!

I don't know how old you are, but if you believe what he said back in the 1980s is true, why have you become a Democrat?

[stupidicus]

35. ain't that the truth

and far more telling and important than some silly little list that could really be mostly condensed into "Bernie loves guns, HC doesn't!!!" by her enamored supporters.

[JDPriestly]

56. Hillary has only run for election two times, and only after her husband served in the White House.

Clinton supports the surveillance program. That's big for me. I do not want Hillary Clinton getting the reports from the surveillance program when citizens, the rest of us, have no way to challenge the decisions that are made about our lives based on those surveillance reports.

If warrants are to be issued, we should have the right to challenge not just the issuance of the warrants and the grounds for those issuances while represented by counsel and in a court of law but there should be a check and balance on interpretations of the information and the conclusions drawn from the data and texts obtained through surveillance.

Hillary is very weak on this issue. Very weak. She has no depth of understanding with regard to why we need checks and balances, strong ones on any internal surveillance program.

Hillary -- just a problem, and a serious one in the making, on this.

The collection of personal information is OK until it is subjected to human evaluation. This second step necessarily involves the application of philosophical and political values to the neutral information that is collected. That is where problems arise. And that is where all warrants and subpoenas need to be requested from and issued by a public court whose decisions provide a public record that citizens can review.

The power of secret surveillance is the marker, the identifying factor in dictatorships. In our society, we need far more extensive supervision of our police including of agencies that have the means and authority to put our lives and actions and words under surveillance.

Hillary Clinton can have an employee who makes sure the bathroom is emptied before she goes in there. Nothing wrong with that. But it seems odd to me that a person who values her privacy to the extent that she waits to go to the bathroom until it is emptied, and has someone stand outside to make sure no one enters until she if finished, does not understand the desire of others to be able to communicate on the phone and internet without the possibility of being recorded or viewed. That is the hubris and abuse of power right there.

So that issue in and of itself is enough to cause me to oppose Hillary.

[bvf]

33. K&R with thanks! n/t

[jalan48]

40. To me the biggest difference is that Bernie doesn't think it's his turn.

[uponit7771]

41. Hillary beats Sanders hands down if the things Hillary voters value is on that list.

I don't value the "sooners" as much as this list does and I value gun control more than this list mentions along with willingness to work for the change they want and a broader perspective of the world other than making sure the rich pay more (which they should) which this list doesn't mention.

In those categories Hillary beats

[Kokonoe]

42. Enough with the Hillary does not support me threads!

If you want support, just send $1,000,000 million dollars to either Bill's foundation for the betterment of things,
or Chelsey's money ends up here fund.

[EndElectoral]

43. Hillary supports military regime change while Sanders does not.

She used to support torture in rare cases, but Obama already called her on that one in 2008.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-changed-on-torture/

"Hillary Clinton actually differed with (John McCain) by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions."

— Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 in Denver

[JDPriestly]

44. What a bout free college tuition at state colleges -- Sanders has introduced a bill to provide

for that. Hillary does not support that.

Sanders is serious enough about family leave to propose a way to pay for it. Hillary does not support that.

Sanders proposes to audit the military if elected. Hillary has not talked about that.

Lots of differences.

And with regard to every issue, Sanders is the one I support.

[Segami]

53. Thanks JDPriestly....

Absolutely!....more differences.

I hope others will continue sharing and posting more Bernie/Hillary differences. In a couple of days, I will collect all the postings and update this list and re-post it to this board.

[WillyT]

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

[red dog 1]

48. K&R!

I wish there was some way we could all unite to oust Debbie Wasserman Schultz as Chair of the DNC.

[Broward]

49. Clinton supporters are aghast that some Bernie backers said they won'vote for Hillary in the general

if she's the nominee. Meanwhile, they are actively voting for a candidate that is much more conservative (a centrist at best imo) than the other options in the primary.

[senz]

58. Bravo, thank you!

Excellent overview that should be bookmarked.

(Segami, we need you. Stay safe and don't let 'em bait you no matter what.)

[bvar22]

61. You could edit your OP, and everywhere you said "Hillary",

you could replace it with "The Republicans do not",
and you post would be just as valid.

THIS is supposed to be a DEMOCRATIC Primary.
If you want a Republican.....well, see above.

[Scuba]

85. ^^ This right here ^^

[bvar22]

90. It is shocking to se that list of Hillary's Issues,

and compare them with standard REPUBLICAN positions.

HOLD ON GANG....I believe we have a MATCH here.

[Scuba]

91. Yet some still insist she's a progressive. Weird, eh?

[antigop]

68. HRC vs. Bernie on H-1B visas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251575493

[cascadiance]

70. And even Senator Cruz now stands with Bernie on wanting to control H-1B visas now...

... even though in the Republican debates, corporatist favorite Rubio has been noting that Cruz was for H-1B before he was against it.

Pressure from Republicans on their candidates to get rid of H-1B too, and no candidate to deliver for them. Bernie will be one that they will vote for given that Hillary hasn't even been against it now even though she was for H-1B more vocally EIGHT YEARS AGO! I guess it takes her a long time to "evolve" on issues like this, if she ever does so. Especially when the DNC and corporate media controlled debates don't really try to ask that question in the Democratic debates, though I wish that Bernie had used that question asking why he was "against Immigration legislation" to explain his positions on H-1B in more detail in the first debate. If that one gets asked again, he should definitely steer the debate questioners to ask the right question in this case.

[Enthusiast]

77. K&R! It's those 14 and far more.

We are desperate for someone that is honest. Nearly the entire nation is aware of this need. That is why Bernie has been so cleverly and deliberately been hidden from the electorate. If Bernie was exposed to the electorate he would win the primary hands down. He would go on to win the general in a massive landslide. People have actually had enough.

[Scuba]

84. K&R Great list and growing. Hillary's backers on this thread have been spanked. As for policies ...

... Bernie's got it all over Hillary and then some.












And shouldn't it be about policies?

[Betty Karlson]

87. K&R for exposure. eom