HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » VegasVet » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Member since: Sat Nov 20, 2004, 04:23 AM
Number of posts: 7,478

Journal Archives

Clinton and Sanders Voted the Same Way 93% of the Time!

Hi, fellow supporters of Hillary! One of my favorite sites for tracking elections since 2004 has been http://electoral-vote.com. I just stumbled on this interesting story over there and wanted to share it with everyone:

While a lot of Sanders supporters see Hillary Clinton as a corporate shill who can't be trusted, in reality Sanders and Clinton don't actually differ that much. The New York Times investigated how they voted during the two years they were in the Senate together. On 93% of the votes, they voted the same way. They did differ 31 times, though (7%) and the article lists every vote where they didn't agree. Clinton's voting record is comparable to that of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), both liberal stalwarts.

Clinton and Sanders differed eight times on foreign policy and defense, mostly on Iran, Guantanamo, and the defense budget. Most times Clinton voted with overwhelming Democratic majorities and Sanders opposed them. On immigration, they differed seven times, once on Y-1 visas and six times on procedural questions. On the financial crisis of 2008, they disagreed three times. Clinton supported Obama on bailing out the banks to avoid destroying the financial system; Sanders voted with the Republicans to let the banks fail.

On energy, they differed four times. Clinton supported ethanol (probably because she was already thinking about the Iowa caucuses) and Sanders opposed it. They also differed on some loans and credits. On homeland security, they differed four times, all of which were close votes in the Senate. Three of them related to the conditions of issuing grants related to homeland security. The other one was about giving immunity to suspicious people who reported threats. Clinton was for immunity; Sanders was opposed.

The last five were a mixed bag. Clinton supported NIST's Advanced Technology Program; Sanders didn't. Clinton supported the FDA reform bill (2x), Sanders was opposed. Clinton opposed earmarks and Sanders supported them. Finally, Clinton supported $45 billion in estate tax exemptions and Sanders, this time in the majority, opposed them.

Last paragraph at link:

I would post this in General Discussion: Primaries, but I don't see the point in doing that, as the Sanders supporters aren't very fond of engaging in actually discussion and I'm not fond of wasting my time. So, I figured I would share it with you guys. It's amazing how much the Sanders supporters and others across the country have lapped up this nonsense that Secretary Clinton is untrustworthy or a corporate shill. I'm very proud to be supporting her and I look forward to her winning tomorrow and then winning the primary. I also visited http://fivethrityeight.com and found that currently Hillary is expected to win in most of the up coming primaries:

Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:56 PM (3 replies)

I didn't want to believe it...

I really didn't want to believe it. I've made it a point to stay out of most of the sniping between the two Democratic camps, but now I see that the other side -- Senator Sanders supporters here -- are extraordinarily rude. I posted this thread and well... You can see the replies here:

Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:04 PM (21 replies)

Those Who Say They Won't Support the Eventual Nominee -- Consider This...

One disturbing thing I've seen on here and other places online is people refusing to support the eventual Democratic nominee if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. To be honest, the majority of people I've seen saying this have been Sanders' supporters and some Clinton supporters occasionally. What worries me about this is that I don't think that they've considered the ramifications of what they're saying. I don't think they've thought about things in relation to historical precedence. Perhaps, most importantly it seems they've not considered recent history as well.

Think of what things were like under George W. Bush. Bit by bit more and more regulation was done away with. Wall Street speculation became more rampant and reckless. Little consideration was given to what it meant to make home loans that were more creative, more crafty, variable rates... The banks essentially gambled in the speculations department knowing all the while that the party couldn't last forever. Then the bottom fell out in 2008. BAM! CRASH! The party was over! Chaos ruled the day and historic havoc affected the financial markets.

Things haven't been perfect under Obama. I haven't always agreed with his policies and don't feel he was progressive enough on things like health care or holding the banks accountable. Nonetheless, under the presidency of Barack Obama, things have started to turn around with the unemployment rate now sinking to the lowest it's been in a while. There was a thread posted a short time ago that posed the question of whether one is better off than they were on January 20, 2009. I'm from, and live in, Vegas. My hometown was hit hard by the Great Recession and I watched from afar in Washington D.C. as Vegas suffered a great deal. While things are still not back to where they were, I think the president's policy -- even if I didn't and don't agree with them all -- have been beneficial to the nation's economic well-being.

That said, I think things will only continue to get better under the presidency of Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders. If one of the Republicans gets in office, I fear for the economic well-being of the country. After all, every time we've had a major economic collapse -- the Great Depression or Recession -- it's been under the administration of a former Republican business man like George W. Bush or Herbert Hoover. Now just imagine a businessman that's declared bankruptcy as much as Trump being president! Nightmarish, isn't it? For that reason I will enthusiastically support either Democratic candidate.

To clarify, I'm asking if people would rather not vote for one candidate or another and potentially hand the country over to Trump, Cruz, or Rubio? You really think any one of those three is going to do anything progressive?

I don't post on here as much as I used to anymore. The vitriol displayed by many posters is disgusting to me. Having attended the Nevada Democratic caucus last week, I found both Bernie and Hillary supporters to be civil and reasonable. Even if they didn't always agree. I joined DU in 2004 in the wake of the election. I was living in Oklahoma in the time and DU was a bastion against the right wing insanity that one would expect to find in such a place. However, over the years, the immaturity, rudeness, lack of civility, unhinged attacks on fellow Democrats, and the adoption of Republican talking points against Sanders and Clinton make me ill. Chances are I won't respond to rude replies on this post either, but I hope that one day DU gets back on its footing of civility. I cannot recall a time where it's ever been quite as bad as it is now -- not 2004 when I was still lurking or even 2008. It got ugly then -- especially in regards to Secretary Clinton -- and things have turned more acerbic as of late. I look forward to the day when I can sign into DU again and enjoy being around fellow liberals, have discussions even if disagree, and once more rely on this place as a solid place to get up-to-the-minute news and discussion on current events.
Posted by Stand and Fight | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:44 PM (204 replies)

Just back from my precinct caucus...

There ended up being a total of 10 delegates from my precinct. The split was 6-4 for Senator Sanders. My wife and I will be attending the County Convention and will likely attend state. If we're lucky we can make it all the way to the National Convention in Philadelphia. The lines were very long and people seemed very motivated. I'm happy to say that all present agreed they will support either Democratic candidate regardless of who wins. None of the immature nonsense I've seen from people on this board saying they will not vote if their candidate doesn't win. If my caucus was any reflection -- not just my precinct -- then this is going to be a close one, folks. Hold onto your seats!
Posted by Stand and Fight | Sat Feb 20, 2016, 05:33 PM (23 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2