Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Questions I'd like answered from Hillary Supporters.... [View all]Buzz cook
(2,836 posts)12. Thanks for numbering
That makes it much easier.
1. I've heard her mention once or twice that she wants to overturn citizens united but she doesn't sound terribly concerned. Is that one of the top priorities for her supporters?
Top what? ten? Twenty? If Obama gets to appoint a justice, that problem may take care of itself. But certainly getting big money out of elections needs to be addressed.
2. Hillary has mentioned her desire to take out Assad in Syria. As history shows, removing a dictator opens a vacuum in the region which could open up another avenue for ISIS. Do Hillary supporters agree or disagree with this policy?
The West "took out" several dictators with the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw pact. While each of those wasn't an unalloyed success, it did have a stabilizing influence till republicans started nation building in the former Soviet block.
Regime change doesn't have to mean military action. by the US or its allies.
Afghanistan both in the late 20th century and the early 21st century is an example of failure a you describe. Believe it or not there were plans in both cases to help Afghanistan back to a stable existence. In both cases those plans were ignored by the republicans in office.
We do have a recent example of regime change that left a relatively stable government. The Balkans after the Dayton accords followed by the liberation of Kosovo and the fall of Milosevic. Actually not a bad place now.
Oh and the reason for unrest in the Balkans? Reagan and some European powers forced the break up of the former Yugoslavia. Something the citizens pretty much were against.
So taking out Assad, it depends.
3. Hillary Clinton is on the record supporting fracking, coal mining, and oil companies. To me, it doesn't seem like she is very serious about combating climate change. Is there something I am missing that her supporters know?
Yes there is always something you (or anyone else) is missing.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/13/bernie-s/does-hillary-clinton-support-fracking/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/04/13/hillary-clintons-plan-to-fight-for-environmental-and-climate-justice/
Clinton is a politician that does listen to people. She sees herself as a technocrat and as such is amenable to good arguments. On more than one occasion Clinton has challenged people who disagree with her to put their own solutions on the table.
4. Hillary has stated that taking money from big financial companies isn't a sign that she will bend to their will. But we call out people like Ted Cruz whose wife worked for Goldman Sachs. Is it fair to blame one person but not another for the same issue? (I'm in no way a Ted Cruz supporter, just using him as an example).
We judge actions. What are Cruz's actions toward the financial elite? How do those actions compare to Clinton's?
We also have the questionable manner in which Cruz received money through his wife as opposed to Clinton who even if you don't like her getting it, did get it openly.
5. Lastly, Hillary is currently under FBI investigation. It is real. There is a big perception issue regarding this investigation as if it's not happening. Are Hillary supporters worried that she may be indicted before or after November and do they consider the ramifications for choosing a presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation?
No I am not worried that she will be indicted. If you remember Bill Clinton had the Paula Jones case hanging over his head in 1992.
Just as Jones had no case because she never proved damages, aside from not getting flowers on secretaries day, I feel the same is true of the Email case. There is no there, there.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real
JudyM
May 2016
#3
Exactly. The fact that Obama's DoJ may not indict is not a demonstration that no crime has occurred.
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#25
This spells doom in the 40 or so civil suits for Hillary's deliberate violation of the FOIA, but the
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#24
I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues
Gothmog
May 2016
#21
Texas gets 9 members to each of the Rules, Platform and Credentials permanent committees
Gothmog
May 2016
#20
Any statement about "mens rea" is ill informed. You don't have access to the FBI's investigation so
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#23
You say that you abhor the non-legal analysis of the issue. You should know there's no "exoneration"
Attorney in Texas
May 2016
#32
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I however have to disagree (a little bit).
ThinkCritically
May 2016
#36
On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#30